Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Truth Detector, canceled.2021.1, canceled.2021.2 and CFM


Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 286

Thread: Mueller did not exonerate trump on obstruction

  1. #76 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    93,645
    Thanks
    9,765
    Thanked 33,614 Times in 21,477 Posts
    Groans
    290
    Groaned 5,632 Times in 5,140 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicRocker View Post
    there was no crime of obstructionism. No charges either
    Mueller did not say that... in fact he apperantly outlined some of the evidence...

  2. #77 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    Mueller did not say that... in fact he apperantly outlined some of the evidence...
    WTF are you talking about?
    there was no crime of obstructionism. No charges either
    is what i was talking about. where is the crime? where are the charges?

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Stretch (03-25-2019)

  4. #78 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,532
    Thanks
    65,153
    Thanked 38,090 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    it was all over the news at that time and discussed in here
    Since you refuse to post Comey's actual words, I'll do it so you can see the word "exoneration" is not mentioned. I know this is long article and few will read it but the fact remains that Comey did not say Hillary was exonerated from wrongdoing.

    "Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State. After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

    This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say. I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

    So, first, what we have done:
    The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system. Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

    I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

    For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together. FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

    From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

    The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond. This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

    With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

    I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department. It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

    The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

    We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort. And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

    Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation. That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

    Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.


    For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

    None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

    While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

    With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

    So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

    In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

    Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

    In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

    As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

    I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization."

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to christiefan915 For This Post:

    CharacterAssassin (03-25-2019), ThatOwlWoman (03-25-2019)

  6. #79 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,532
    Thanks
    65,153
    Thanked 38,090 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Lightbulb

    Originally Posted by Adolf_Twitler
    Thread banners are the epitome of Drama Queens, Attention Whores, and self-important assholes..

    Basically, the thread banner wants to have a little circle jerk with his ass-kissing think-a-likes, while volunteering to be the pivot man.

    Quote Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911 View Post
    Members banned from this thread: evince, ZappasGuitar, moon, domer76, Nomad, MASON, Jade Dragon, Troll, PoliTalker, guno, Adolf_Twitler, StoneByStone and lisasanders1964

    Thread: Please use this thread for reposting liberal excuses for not getting what they want.

    Started by USFREEDOM911, 03-22-2019 06:53 PM


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  7. #80 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,532
    Thanks
    65,153
    Thanked 38,090 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Originally Posted by Adolf_Twitler
    Thread banners are the epitome of Drama Queens, Attention Whores, and self-important assholes..

    Basically, the thread banner wants to have a little circle jerk with his ass-kissing think-a-likes, while volunteering to be the pivot man.

    Quote Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911 View Post

    Members banned from this thread: evince, ZappasGuitar, moon, domer76, Nomad, MASON, Jade Dragon, Troll, PoliTalker, guno, jimmymccready, Adolf_Twitler, StoneByStone and lisasanders1964

    Started by USFREEDOM911, 03-22-2019 11:29 PM

    Thread: Liberal Failures, starting from 2015


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  8. #81 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Since you refuse to post Comey's actual words, I'll do it so you can see the word "exoneration" is not mentioned. I know this is long article and few will read it but the fact remains that Comey did not say Hillary was exonerated from wrongdoing.

    "Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State. After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

    This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say. I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

    So, first, what we have done:
    The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system. Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

    I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

    For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together. FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

    From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

    The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond. This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

    With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

    I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department. It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

    The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

    We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort. And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

    Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation. That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

    Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.


    For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

    None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

    While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

    With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

    So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

    In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

    Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

    In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

    As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

    I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization."

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system
    OK. It was reported at the time as "exonerate". He played judge, AG and jury and let her go after he said she was guilty of "extreme gross careless negligence".
    He'll be questioned soon about that debacle. Along with others involved in the Hillary/Russia situation.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  9. #82 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,754
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,417 Times in 7,536 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Page 3 of Barr's letter.

    Obstruction of Justice
    The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President - most of which have been the subject of public reporting - that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/polit...doj/index.html
    Just curious. What did Trump do to even remotely appear he obstructed justice? And please don't say firing Comey.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to anonymoose For This Post:

    Stretch (03-25-2019)

  11. #83 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    State of Bliss
    Posts
    31,007
    Thanks
    7,095
    Thanked 5,196 Times in 3,829 Posts
    Groans
    433
    Groaned 261 Times in 257 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Breaking...

    Mueller did not find Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia, also did not exonerate him on obstruction
    Updated 4:52 PM ET, Sun March 24, 2019

    "Mueller also did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute obstruction of justice, Barr wrote, but he did not exonerate the President.

    "The special counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," the four-page letter sent to Congress states.

    Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made the determination that the evidence was "not sufficient" to support a prosecution of the President for obstruction of justice.

    "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," Barr quotes Mueller as saying."


    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/polit...ase/index.html
    trumpf exonerated himself, that is all his followers need......
    "There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone," McConnell wrote. "His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended."



  12. #84 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,532
    Thanks
    65,153
    Thanked 38,090 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    trumpf exonerated himself, that is all his followers need......
    Ha, that is so true. How many here posted a pic of trump's tweet as "evidence" of his exoneration!


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to christiefan915 For This Post:

    Bill (03-25-2019), ThatOwlWoman (03-25-2019)

  14. #85 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    OK. It was reported at the time as "exonerate". He played judge, AG and jury and let her go after he said she was guilty of "extreme gross careless negligence".
    He'll be questioned soon about that debacle. Along with others involved in the Hillary/Russia situation.
    Comey is full of shit.
    "gross negligence" does NOT REQUIRE intent- the act of placing any classified info on a non-secure server,
    or safe ( like Kendall and the thumb drive) are all ipso facto statute violations

    There was a sailor who took pics of his sub when he left service (classified) for his own use-
    he was indicted and jailed

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Stretch (03-25-2019)

  16. #86 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,662
    Thanks
    6,591
    Thanked 12,127 Times in 9,658 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 503 Times in 476 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    no evidence for obstruction is exoneration in my book. please get lives.

  17. #87 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Breaking...

    Mueller did not find Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia, also did not exonerate him on obstruction
    Updated 4:52 PM ET, Sun March 24, 2019

    "Mueller also did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute obstruction of justice, Barr wrote, but he did not exonerate the President.

    "The special counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," the four-page letter sent to Congress states.

    Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made the determination that the evidence was "not sufficient" to support a prosecution of the President for obstruction of justice.

    "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," Barr quotes Mueller as saying."


    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/polit...ase/index.html

    In order to prosecute for obstruction one must CHARGE a person with obstruction.

    Mueller didn't have anything that he could charge him with. Got it?
    Trump was never CHARGED with obstruction.
    THEREFORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRE..........without a prosecuted charge, there can be no "exoneration" in the pure technical sense.
    THE END.........roll the credits.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  18. #88 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    1,643
    Thanks
    300
    Thanked 548 Times in 419 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 35 Times in 34 Posts

    Default

    Hello, there is no evidence of obstruction.

  19. #89 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    9,083
    Thanks
    2,345
    Thanked 3,121 Times in 2,441 Posts
    Groans
    200
    Groaned 265 Times in 242 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post

    Mueller did not find Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia, also did not exonerate him on obstruction
    Yet Trump is exonerated and did not collude. Interesting.
    The Truth Does Not Need To Be Supported With Censorship.

  20. #90 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    6,649
    Thanks
    2,024
    Thanked 2,146 Times in 1,528 Posts
    Groans
    19
    Groaned 429 Times in 408 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Just curious. What did Trump do to even remotely appear he obstructed justice? And please don't say firing Comey.
    Firing Comey and admitting he did so to end/disrupt the investigations into his campaign.

    Don't play stupid.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 410
    Last Post: 04-01-2019, 01:28 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-27-2018, 05:05 AM
  3. MUELLER- HERE’S SOME OBSTRUCTION THAT YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR.
    By volsrock in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-16-2018, 03:15 PM
  4. Mueller Weighs Putting Off Trump Obstruction Decision
    By anatta in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-12-2018, 03:00 PM
  5. Will Mueller charge trump with obstruction of justice over russia?. Why not Obama?
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-16-2017, 08:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •