Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:40 PM, B-Man said: As Tibsy breathlessly told us.............added: and Mcgee "If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so." Mueller That's not how this works? It's the other way around. You look for evidence that a crime was committed, and if you don't find it you say "we didn't find any." You don't look for evidence that it wasn't and then say, "we couldn't find evidence of innocence." . Expand It's alarming to hear this from the former head of the FBI. Makes you wonder what Comey learned at his feet. 1
McGee Return TD Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:39 PM, Deranged Rhino said: You left out part of the quote -- but that's because you're not being honest. Which is on brand. Expand Finish it then, please. On 5/29/2019 at 3:39 PM, Deranged Rhino said: You left out part of the quote -- but that's because you're not being honest. Which is on brand. Expand The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. And we conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. 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. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.
row_33 Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:39 PM, Buffalo_Gal said: I expected them to manufacturer something, IYKWIMAITYD. Expand i don't even believe Trump didn't do SOMETHING worthy of parading around....
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:40 PM, Deranged Rhino said: He spent his career covering up major crimes, so you're not wrong. Expand And let us not forget that the FISA abuse started in 2012 while he was head of the FBI. ? Link to Rosemary Collyer Report for those that want a refresher on FISA abuse. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:43 PM, McGee Return TD said: Finish it then, please. Expand I did two pages ago. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime,” Keep cherry picking and pretending you're objective. You're not. You're also terrible at this. On 5/29/2019 at 3:46 PM, Buffalo_Gal said: And let us not forget that the FISA abuse started in 2012 while he was head of the FBI. ? Link to Rosemary Collyer Report for those that want a refresher on FISA abuse. Expand 100%
McGee Return TD Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:47 PM, Deranged Rhino said: I did two pages ago. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime,” Keep cherry picking and pretending you're objective. You're not. You're also terrible at this. Expand and you left off the rest of the quote. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. 1
GG Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:29 PM, Buffalo_Gal said: AFAIK it was never turned over to the FBI (please, someone correct me if that is wrong!) Expand There's a long discussion about this a year or so ago in one of Greggy's threads. Investigators only got an ISO image of the server, not the physical drive. According to some experts on this site, that should have been enough. But depending on the political viewpoint, the opposing experts disagreed. 1
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:49 PM, McGee Return TD said: and you left off the rest of the quote. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. Expand "We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime" makes that rather moot. At least, to normal, rational people. 2 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:50 PM, DC Tom said: "We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime" makes that rather moot. At least, to normal, rational people. Expand Correct.
McGee Return TD Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:50 PM, DC Tom said: "We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime" makes that rather moot. At least, to normal, rational people. Expand Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider makes that rather moot. At least, to normal, rational people. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:50 PM, GG said: There's a long discussion about this a year or so ago in one of Greggy's threads. Investigators only got an ISO image of the server, not the physical drive. According to some experts on this site, that should have been enough. But depending on the political viewpoint, the opposing experts disagreed. Expand Correct. CrowdStrike - the DNC vendor - performed the analysis on their own and Comey took their work as gold because, per Comey, CrowdStrike was also an FBI vendor. (see how that works, people?) 1
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:51 PM, Deranged Rhino said: Correct. Expand I mean, it should be obvious. "We didn't determine he committed a crime. And we didn't charge him because it's policy not to." The policy's ***** irrelevant if you don't determine a crime was committed. What, you're going to charge someone when you determine he didn't commit a crime? 3
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:52 PM, McGee Return TD said: Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider makes that rather moot. At least, to normal, rational people. Expand You're killing me.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:53 PM, DC Tom said: I mean, it should be obvious. "We didn't determine he committed a crime. And we didn't charge him because it's policy not to." The policy's ***** irrelevant if you don't determine a crime was committed. What, you're going to charge someone when you determine he didn't commit a crime? Expand You'd think. But TDS is a degenerative disease as that poster keeps proving with each new screen name he jumps to.
B-Man Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 “I hope and expect that this will be the only time I will speak to you...” “The report is my testimony.” They're still going to subpoena him. They want to keep this alive for the election Their desperation is obvious, in the media/dems responses..............as well as on this board ? . 2
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 Insufficient evidence. Then there is evidence, just not enough to go to trial with. And that's on conspiracy with a foreign government
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:57 PM, Tiberius said: Insufficient evidence. Then there is evidence, just not enough to go to trial with. And that's on conspiracy with a foreign government Expand That's not how our system of justice works. At all. That's how Soviet Russia used to work though... are you sure you're rooting for the right team, Tibs?
McGee Return TD Posted May 29, 2019 Posted May 29, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 3:58 PM, Deranged Rhino said: Expand #WWG1WGA
Recommended Posts