triron (13,330 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212314290
Something is NOT RIGHT. Mueller let Trump get away with TREASON. Just like Flynn wasn't charged
likewise.
EndGOPPropaganda (1,000 posts)
77. He could have. Or he could have gone on a public relations bltz.
Instead Mueller has acted like this is the 1950s Republican Party.
He’s a registered Republican. And he does not seem to recognize how corrupted the GOP is.
His country needed him. And he not only followed every single rule and failed to say anything publicly, he made up new rules to give the president the benefit of the doubt.
Democrats trusted Mueller and we wasted two years doing so.
Star Member The Velveteen Ocelot (73,279 posts)
8. For the umpteenth time, Mueller didn't indict him because the OLC memos say a sitting president can't be indicted, and so far there is no legal authority to the contrary. If Mueller had disregarded the OLC memos and indicted Trump anyhow, apart from the fact that he'd have been instantly fired, the indictment would have been challenged in court and would have gone to the Supreme Court - and this court would almost certainly agree with the separation of powers argument in the memos.
that and the fact there was no evidence of any crimes committed...
AncientGeezer (1,139 posts)
19. Possibly because the evidene didn't support indictment??
Star Member Solomon (9,753 posts)
34. Bullshit. I wish people would stop acting like you must have proof of a crime to indict.
Where did we get this idea that a charge has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before you can charge? That's what the fricking trial is for!
I wish they would apply this kind of privilege before they indict or charge us black folk.
AncientGeezer (1,139 posts)
38. " I wish people would stop acting like you must have proof of a crime to indict."
Did you type that meaning it?
You need no proof of a crime to charge someone with a crime....really?
Star Member Solomon (9,753 posts)
45. Yes, Really. All you need is probable cause.
And yes, I'm a damned defense attorney, so I know what the **** I'm talking about
That says more about the legal system than anything else...
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to seek an indictment from a grand jury in order to prosecute someone for a felony or "otherwise infamous" crime.
Former New York Court of Appeals Judge Solomon Wachtler once famously remarked that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," which isn't too far from the truth. But this has more to do with the fact that prosecutors generally don't call for grand juries until they're confident in the strength of their case.
Since the grand jury is determining whether there is probable cause and not guilt, the standard of proof is much lower than for criminal trials.
To determine probable cause, grand jury members must determine through the evidence and facts presented whether "a federal crime has probably been committed by the person accused," according to the Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors.
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause
when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest)
or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search).
Star Member Solomon (9,753 posts)
84. Jeeezuz guy. Give it up. There's nothing in that long quote to even remotely suggest that law enforcement must have proof of a crime before they arrest, indict or charge. I told you, I'm a defense attorney. You're obviously not. You cant lecture me on something I've lived in the courts for going on 40 years. Just stop it. Stop digging. There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of crimes in Mueller's report that would support an indictment or charge.
Star Member wasupaloopa (3,560 posts)
57. You need evidence for a grand jury. You cannot just indict someone.
Star Member Solomon (9,753 posts)
58. (Rolls eyes) nobody is talking about indicting without evidence.
Evidence but not proof. Get it? Evidence is not proof. There's plenty of frickin evidence.
AncientGeezer (1,139 posts)
62. Evidence isn't proof...Ok wow.. Evidence is the basis of "proof"
You said and I quote...." I wish people would stop acting like you must have proof of a crime to indict."......There isn't a Prosecutor on the planet that would agree with that....
Per the traditional aphorism, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed.or
In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea. Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea.Baltimike (1,804 posts)
70. and no one is indicting without evidence.
reading for comprehension can be fun
Star Member Solomon (9,753 posts)
85. Lol. You're hilarious.
You really are. And wrong as hell to boot.
Try and learn how the American legal system works.
Star Member former9thward (21,466 posts)
44. You are ignoring what he said at the beginning of the afternoon session.
He said the OLC ruling was not a factor in whether they decided to indict.
Codeine (22,409 posts)
16. The OP knows this,
as it’s been explained to him in absolutely excruciating detail. He’s just compelled to post the same shit endlessly, legalities notwithstanding.
She_Totally_Gets_It (10 posts)
42. I believe with all my heart that Mueller--a ReTHUG--is deliberately protecting Trump.
triron (13,330 posts)
90. I agree. Trump pulled a double whammy on our nation and is getting away scott free so far.
In fact, he has profited from it and gained prestige by being POTUS even though he is illegitimate.
Plus SCOTUS has been fundamentally changed without recourse it seems. Not to mention
all the bullshit 'executive decisions' which have been forced upon us. Our nation has been raped
by Trump.
UniteFightBack (4,272 posts)
80. rump Clinton and company destroyed evidence, lied and obstructed justice.....and all of it worked up to a point.
fixed it for ya!
triron (13,330 posts)
95. kick again
He's kicked his own post five times so far....
