Random Politics & Religion #37: W/ Bubba The Love Sponge

Except there are no scandals, and his agenda is moving forward despite their efforts.

Dems now calling for parts of it to be released and some withheld.

If they release the full report then they also have to release the full FISA warrant has to be released too.

Now why would some dems not want that part released?

Also, we will never see the full report and they know it. Grand Jury testimony is sealed as well as counter surveillance. That by law cannot be released.

Now the Dems saying that just cause the DoJ isn't going to charge anyone doesn't mean they can't be charged ... by someone ... somewhere ... somehow.

Their just living in pure fantasy land now...

Vic back to his old tricks making ***up. I guess we can give him a pass, Trump was exonerated today 100%

Has there even been anything said that was more laughable and pathetic?

Uh yeah! All of your posts lol. You continue to lie about pretty much everything, especially when you try to talk about me.

Best ive seen is that because Mueller didnt directly exonerate Trump from obstructing justice (as if you could ever proove that negative) it means Barr tipped the scales.

After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Here we are, 20 years later, still arguing what definition of "is" is.