No Collusion!

[Bill the Cat]

Even the republicans favorite judge and Fox news legal analyst, Judge Nepolitano, disagrees with you regarding obstruction. That you can't see or understand the evidence is on you. And btw, you don't understand how impeachment works either, it's a political proceeding, not criminal proceeding. Anyone with a brain can see what the president has done and is doing with regaeds to collusion, conspiracy, and obstruction, not to mention the undermining of our democratic Institutions. Congress, and the american people will ultimately decide what to do about it, not a criminal court.

High CRIMES and misdemeanors, Jim. No evidence of crime was committed.

[The Pendragon]

You are wrong. The special counsel refused to exonerate Trump on ‘obstruction of justice’. He said that “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mueller wrote in his conclusion. But, “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement.”

As I said in my first post, It's not Mueller's job to exonerate Trump, if you read it you would understand. The prosecutors Job (Mueller) is to give actual evidence that will hold up in court, which he does not have. If the evidence is not good enough for Mueller to make a case then the case never goes to court.

Mueller is not a judge, he can't make the decision of Guilty or Not Guilty.

If a prosecutor says “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” the defendant goes free without a trial. In this case the 'Judgment' refers to putting the case before the courts, that is the only judgment that a prosecutor has the power to make. No Evidence = Not guilty.

Let's try it this way, JimL and Tass are criminals I being the prosecutor have no evidence of their Crimes against humanity. But I can't prove that they did not commit the crimes either, but a lot of people said they did, So until I can prove them innocent we will assume that they are guilty. This is the system that JimL and Tass are using.

Tass, again we have a good example of the "Gish-Gallop" style of writing.
The Mueller team is speaking to powers it does not have and making it sound like it's their right to use the powers.
They are also speaking as both the prosecution and defense.
There was no evidence of Obstruction of Justice because the investigation was never interfered with(Intent is not actual Obstruction.)

[The Pendragon]

Even the republicans favorite judge and Fox news legal analyst, Judge Nepolitano, disagrees with you regarding obstruction. That you can't see or understand the evidence is on you. And btw, you don't understand how impeachment works either, it's a political proceeding, not criminal proceeding. Anyone with a brain can see what the president has done and is doing with regaeds to collusion, conspiracy, and obstruction, not to mention the undermining of our democratic Institutions. Congress, and the american people will ultimately decide what to do about it, not a criminal court.

Nice try, But I'm not surprised that Judge Nepolitano disagrees with me. He comes down against Trump most of the time when it comes to the Mueller Investigation and gets it wrong a good amount of the time. Many other legal analyst do agree with what I said, including Alan Dershowitz the Democratic legal scholar.

It was Mueller that could not find evidence of Obstruction: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” By not making a decision he is saying that he does not have evidence. By the way Mueller was clear on collusion, and conspiracy. "No U.S. citizens colluded with Russia." (Trump was a U.S. citizen last time I checked) and without colluded there is no conspiracy.

Challenge to you and Tass: Give me your evidence of collusion, conspiracy, obstruction outside of the Mueller report (because Mueller already admitted that he did not have legal standing.) If you can do that I will listen to your bloviating. But, please no hearsay, and provide Documents, Emails and the like as documentation.

As for the undermining of our democratic Institutions:
What Institutions have been undermined?
Not agreeing with policies is not undermining.
You might want to stay clear of racism claims, because I will prove that the claims of racism against Trump are actually liberals and the press being racist, not Trump.

[RumTumTugger]

Challenge to you and Tass: Give me your evidence of collusion, conspiracy, obstruction outside of the Mueller report (because Mueller already admitted that he did not have legal standing.) If you can do that I will listen to your bloviating. But, please no hearsay, and provide Documents, Emails and the like as documentation.

As for the undermining of our democratic Institutions:
What Institutions have been undermined?
Not agreeing with policies is not undermining.
You might want to stay clear of racism claims, because I will prove that the claims of racism against Trump are actually liberals and the press being racist, not Trump.

bold emphasis mine

[Tassman]

Exactly. This is why I say that Mueller's statement that he couldn't conclude that the President committed any crimes, but he couldn't exonerate was more politics than legal opinion.

No, in plain English Mueller reported that “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement.” I.e. to exonerate Trump.

[Mountain Man]

No, in plain English Mueller reported that “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement.” I.e. to exonerate Trump.

Again, prosecutors don't exonerate. The "applicable legal standard" referred to is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which Mueller didn't have, and AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein affirmed Mueller's decision not to pursue indictment.

[Cow Poke]

As I said in my first post, ...

When dealing with Tassman, it will take far more posts than a first one, and even then, he'll just double down on saying the same thing over and over and accusing you of not answering him. He's wired funny that way.

[JimL]

Nice try, But I'm not surprised that Judge Nepolitano disagrees with me. He comes down against Trump most of the time when it comes to the Mueller Investigation and gets it wrong a good amount of the time. Many other legal analyst do agree with what I said, including Alan Dershowitz the Democratic legal scholar.

It was Mueller that could not find evidence of Obstruction: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” By not making a decision he is saying that he does not have evidence. By the way Mueller was clear on collusion, and conspiracy. "No U.S. citizens colluded with Russia." (Trump was a U.S. citizen last time I checked) and without colluded there is no conspiracy.

Challenge to you and Tass: Give me your evidence of collusion, conspiracy, obstruction outside of the Mueller report (because Mueller already admitted that he did not have legal standing.) If you can do that I will listen to your bloviating. But, please no hearsay, and provide Documents, Emails and the like as documentation.

As for the undermining of our democratic Institutions:
What Institutions have been undermined?
Not agreeing with policies is not undermining.
You might want to stay clear of racism claims, because I will prove that the claims of racism against Trump are actually liberals and the press being racist, not Trump.

Not to waste a lot of time I will give you one instance of conspiracy to see if you have enough objectivity to admit to it. P.Manafort, Trumps campaign manager, gave the campaigns internal polling data and geographical targeting data to a Russian Operative, a foriegn adversary, in order that they focus their electoral interference campaign in those critical states in order to win the electoral college for their man Trump. Is that conspiracy in your opinion? And btw, there is a whole lot more corrupt activity than that!

[The Pendragon]

Not to waste a lot of time I will give you one instance of conspiracy to see if you have enough objectivity to admit to it. P.Manafort, Trumps campaign manager, gave the campaigns internal polling data and geographical targeting data to a Russian Operative, a foriegn adversary, in order that they focus their electoral interference campaign in those critical states in order to win the electoral college for their man Trump. Is that conspiracy in your opinion? And btw, there is a whole lot more corrupt activity than that!

Again nice try, Mueller knew about all of this it came out of the Mueller investigation, and did not see it as rising to the level of conspiracy. Mueller could not connect the dots back to the Trump campaign or prove that any one else but Manafort knew about it, or if Manafort knew it was a Russian Operative. If he had he would not have cleared Trumps campaign of collusion, or are you telling me that Mueller knowingly lied in the report and if he did Mueller created a false report and gave it to the U.S. AG and Congress. Both crimes that Mueller convicted all of the U.S. Citizens on in his investigation.

Are you telling me that we need to Lock up Mueller and his team?

Mueller put it plainly in his report he could not find Collusion without Collusion there can't be conspiracy.

I will repeat this again, because it seem your a little slow and it takes you and Tass 3 or more times before you understand (Please don't make me post this again it just makes you two look dense). Mueller was clear that he could not find any collusion or conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and the Russians (or any American). I know this is hard for you JimL But "NO means NO".

Do you trust Mueller or not?
If you don't trust Mueller how can you trust the report?
If you do trust Mueller why don't you trust him when he see "NO COLLUSION"?

I guess I have to be clearer when I ask you things, you I thought you where smarter then you are, I should have said "outside of the Mueller Investigation" I just figured that the report covered the investigation.

Do you have any evidence that Mueller did not know about?

[The Pendragon]

When dealing with Tassman, it will take far more posts than a first one, and even then, he'll just double down on saying the same thing over and over and accusing you of not answering him. He's wired funny that way.

JimL, is afflicted by the same malfunction as Tass.

[Bill the Cat]

JimL, is afflicted by the same malfunction as Tass.

AKA "liberalism"

[rogue06]

Not to waste a lot of time I will give you one instance of conspiracy to see if you have enough objectivity to admit to it. P.Manafort, Trumps campaign manager, gave the campaigns internal polling data and geographical targeting data to a Russian Operative, a foriegn adversary, in order that they focus their electoral interference campaign in those critical states in order to win the electoral college for their man Trump. Is that conspiracy in your opinion? And btw, there is a whole lot more corrupt activity than that!

Maybe Mueller overlooked that. Oh wait. He devoted an entire section to Manafort sharing polling information with a Ukrainian (not Russian) operative and concluded that neither Trump nor his campaign were colluding with anyone

[Mountain Man]

Maybe Mueller overlooked that. Oh wait. He devoted an entire section to Manafort sharing polling information with a Ukrainian (not Russian) operative and concluded that neither Trump nor his campaign were colluding with anyone

Like I keep saying, if Mueller's report was really as damning to Trump as Democrats claim then they wouldn't be bothering with questioning Barr and other time wasting theatrics, they'd be filing a motion to impeach with Mueller's report as Exhibit A.

[oxmixmudd]

Again, prosecutors don't exonerate. The "applicable legal standard" referred to is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which Mueller didn't have, and AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein affirmed Mueller's decision not to pursue indictment.

Do you suppose Mueller made that statement for no purpose? Can you look at that statement and truly assume it meant nothing? If it meant something, what do you suppose it meant if not that There is evidence of a problem, but not enough to charge him with a crime?

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Do you suppose Mueller made that statement for no purpose? Can you look at that statement and truly assume it meant nothing? If it meant something, what do you suppose it meant if not that There is evidence of a problem, but not enough to charge him with a crime?

Jim

I'm sure he had a purpose. However, since it is not a prosecutor's place to exonerate someone who was never charged with a crime, it's reasonable to conclude that Mueller's motives were political rather than legal.

As it has been explained to you and others before, when a prosecutor declines to press charges, anything else he might have to say about the matter is irrelevant.