Mueller: NO collusion & NO Obstruction by Trump or Trump campaign

“The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.“
 
domer76 said:
:lolup:

I’ve been down every one of those sites that you uninformed pissants will cite.

The true burden of proof “presumes” nothing. It goes in neutral. But, for simpletons of your level, they dumb it down.
Click to expand...

Those with law degrees and vast knowledge of it say you're wrong dipshit. Counter the quote from Cornell/Nolo. It isn't neutral in the slightest and as the quote said, it is sacred you jackass.
 
Yurt said:
Those with law degrees and vast knowledge of it say you're wrong dipshit. Counter the quote from Cornell/Nolo. It isn't neutral in the slightest and as the quote said, it is sacred you jackass.
Click to expand...
Liar
 
christiefan915 said:
There was NO trial yurtsie. Stop being obtuse.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. He has been accused by several high ranking members of a congress of committing all these crimes. Why should you democrats presume him guilty when the most sacred principle of the criminal justice system says to presume innocent.

You heard of trial by public opinion? Well you guys are holding trial.

Further, The presumption applies as soon as one is accused and as I noted he has been accused by those who can convict him.

Dodo.
 
Yurt said:
Doesn't matter. He has been accused by several high ranking members of a congress of committing all these crimes. Why should you democrats presume him guilty when the most sacred principle of the criminal justice system says to presume innocent.

You heard of trial by public opinion? Well you guys are holding trial.

Further, The presumption applies as soon as one is accused and as I noted he has been accused by those who can convict him.

Dodo.
Click to expand...

Liar
 
“The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.“
 
Yurt said:
Those with law degrees and vast knowledge of it say you're wrong dipshit. Counter the quote from Cornell/Nolo. It isn't neutral in the slightest and as the quote said, it is sacred you jackass.
Click to expand...

Cite me a criminal case where the verdict was “innocent” versus “not guilty”
 
domer76 said:
Cite me a criminal case where the verdict was “innocent” versus “not guilty”
Click to expand...

Go look up the Innocence Project you retarded and illiterate fool.

As to the original verdict, of course That is guilty or not guilty. You're running away from your pathetic attempts to diminish the presumption of innocence you sick authoritarian thug.
 
Jarod said:
“The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.“
Click to expand...

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.
 
domer76 said:
No, stupid fuck. They are either found guilty or not guilty. Because a prosecutor can’t meet his/her burden of proof doesn’t mean the accused didn’t commit the crime. Are all RWers as dense as this forum’s group?

Your analogy is laughable.
Click to expand...
you IDIOT. that is EXACTLY what it means - no evidence to charge for a crime means there was no actionable crime!!

think it thru. if an investigation that doesn't result in an indictment is a crime then every criminal investigation EVER would be a crime!! morons
 
domer76 said:
That phrase is nothing more than a shorthand way of telling morons like you that the prosecution has to meet their burden of proof for the accused to be found guilty.

A person is not found “innocent”, OOLISS. They are found “guilty” or “not guilty”. I can’t dumb it down any more for morons of your level.
Click to expand...

That's during a trial!!

When was the trial held?? :dunno:
 
christiefan915 said:
Did you think I was denying that lol? You seem to be denying "while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Click to expand...

Was Hillary "EXONERATED" or was there not enough evidence to indict; because according to JPP liberals, this means she is still guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top