Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Just now, 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." . It's alarming to hear this from the former head of the FBI. Makes you wonder what Comey learned at his feet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGee Return TD Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: You left out part of the quote -- but that's because you're not being honest. Which is on brand. Finish it then, please. 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You left out part of the quote -- but that's because you're not being honest. Which is on brand. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 13 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I expected them to manufacturer something, IYKWIMAITYD. i don't even believe Trump didn't do SOMETHING worthy of parading around.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: He spent his career covering up major crimes, so you're not wrong. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said: Finish it then, please. 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. 1 minute ago, 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. 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGee Return TD Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Just now, 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: AFAIK it was never turned over to the FBI (please, someone correct me if that is wrong!) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 1 minute ago, 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. "We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime" makes that rather moot. At least, to normal, rational people. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: "We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime" makes that rather moot. At least, to normal, rational people. Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGee Return TD Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: "We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime" makes that rather moot. At least, to normal, rational people. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 1 minute ago, 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Correct. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Nadler's statement: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 1 minute ago, 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. You're killing me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Just now, 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? You'd think. But TDS is a degenerative disease as that poster keeps proving with each new screen name he jumps to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 29, 2019 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Congress starting to chirp: (not Congress) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 29, 2019 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Just now, 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 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGee Return TD Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: #WWG1WGA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts