Hillary didn’t throw a baby fit!

[Jarod]

I did. Mueller clearly indicated that he was unable to establish a conspiracy between the Russian Government and the Trump Campaign. While he did suggest that Trump might gain from what the Russians were doing, there was no link for him to find...

But hey, while 200 pages described things that Russians did and how somebody might gain from it, the reality was there was no evidence of that element that would prove a conspiracy.

Surely you won't suggest we should pretend that somebody is guilty once the investigation shows that there is nothing they can take to court...

Being unable to establish something is not the same as, it didn't happen. They were able to establish obstruction of justice, having occurred might be why they could not establish conspiracy.

 

[Earl]

Not what Mueller said and does not mean the basis was a lie.

Here’s what a lie is.

When you posted that Hillary never called the Trump presidency an “illegitimate” presidency.

That was a lie by you.

 

[Earl]

Being unable to establish something is not the same as, it didn't happen. They were able to establish obstruction of justice, having occurred might be why they could not establish conspiracy.

No, they were not able to establish obstruction of justice.

‘In an exchange with Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, Barr said he believes if there was enough evidence to constitute obstruction of justice then Mueller would have said so.

Grassley, May 1: If the special counsel found facts sufficient to constitute obstruction of justice would he have stated that finding?

Barr: If–if he had found that then I think he would state it, yes.“
fact-check.com

 

[Jarod]

No, they were not able to establish obstruction of justice.

‘In an exchange with Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, Barr said he believes if there was enough evidence to constitute obstruction of justice then Mueller would have said so.

Grassley, May 1: If the special counsel found facts sufficient to constitute obstruction of justice would he have stated that finding?

Barr: If–if he had found that then I think he would state it, yes.“
fact-check.com

Here is where what you wrote went wrong... "Barr said..."

 

[Earl]

Here is where what you wrote went wrong... "Barr said..."

No, what Barr said is correct... Barr said he believes if there was enough evidence to constitute obstruction of justice then Mueller would have said so.

Mueller did not say so.

The impeachment of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was initiated on December 18, 2019, when the House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted Trump of these charges on February 5, 2020.

Do you see “obstruction of justice” there? It is not there because there was “insufficient evidence” of obstruction of justice.

He was exonerated of all charges in the articles of impeachment.

 

[Jarod]

No, what Barr said is correct... Barr said he believes if there was enough evidence to constitute obstruction of justice then Mueller would have said so.

Mueller did not say so.

The impeachment of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was initiated on December 18, 2019, when the House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted Trump of these charges on February 5, 2020.

Do you see “obstruction of justice” there? It is not there because there was “insufficient evidence” of obstruction of justice.

He was exonerated of all charges in the articles of impeachment.

Wrong, I wont go round and round, you and Barr are simply flat our wrong. Prosecutors do not exonerate.

 

[Damocles]

Being unable to establish something is not the same as, it didn't happen. They were able to establish obstruction of justice, having occurred might be why they could not establish conspiracy.

What it does mean, is that there isn't evidence to establish it. Hence my statement that there is no evidence to support that. I will continue to tell you that it is fabrication to say that there is evidence of one thing because of a secondary thing. There is nothing in criminal law that says, "You did this that we have some evidential support but no jurisdictional law over here, so that means you also did that over there that we have no evidence to support."

The reality is: Conspiracy was not in evidence.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Not one Electoral vote has been given to anyone.

The Justice Department is investigating the systemic Democrat voter fraud.

There are sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury as to their fraud.

The Supreme Court will decide as they did in Bush/Gore.

Ok, I was afraid of that!

Folks what we have here is someone who actually did follow the president's advice- AND DRINK THE FUCKING BLEACH!

AND OBVIOUSLY WOLVERINE DID AS WELL!

 

[Jarod]

What it does mean, is that there isn't evidence to establish it. Hence my statement that there is no evidence to support that. I will continue to tell you that it is fabrication to say that there is evidence of one thing because of a secondary thing. There is nothing in criminal law that says, "You did this that we have some evidential support but no jurisdictional law over here, so that means you also did that over there that we have no evidence to support."

The reality is: Conspiracy was not in evidence.

But to say that means it was made up, is ignorant. One does not mean the other.

I prosecuted plenty of guilty people whose case had to be dropped because of lack of usable evidence.