-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
M*lleur: "If we had evidence....
- Thread starter canadyjd
- Start date
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
I was thinking the same thing. The prosecutor has the burden of proof and has to provide sufficient evidence for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent that evidence, the defendant is presumed innocent.
In most cases, if the prosecutor doesn't have sufficient evidence to show a crime has been committed, he doesn't bring a case. Mueller has no case and he knows it. He does not have sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. For that very reason, he doesn't have to provide evidence that it wasn't committed because of the presumption of innocence is the default position.
what the big Mule actually said:
"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."
LOL, so what did what did you do, Muley? This may just make Nancy's dilemma a lot worse - see, her crazy base wants her to impeach Trump but she knows doing that will just kill her party. I think Mule was pressured by the Schiff/Nader wing to give this worthless press conference so she'd have to start the impeachment proceedings since now Mule claims he couldn't indict a sitting POTUS but . . . PLEASE IMPEACH!!!
And Mule probably wants Trump impeached because that would stop, at least temporarily, Barrr's declassification, because there'd be an ongoing investigation. THAT would greatly help "some" members of Congress and Mule's stupid best friend but that would be a huge sacrifice from Pelosi's perspective - no more Speaker and they'd never win in the end. She should resist that.
"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."
LOL, so what did what did you do, Muley? This may just make Nancy's dilemma a lot worse - see, her crazy base wants her to impeach Trump but she knows doing that will just kill her party. I think Mule was pressured by the Schiff/Nader wing to give this worthless press conference so she'd have to start the impeachment proceedings since now Mule claims he couldn't indict a sitting POTUS but . . . PLEASE IMPEACH!!!
And Mule probably wants Trump impeached because that would stop, at least temporarily, Barrr's declassification, because there'd be an ongoing investigation. THAT would greatly help "some" members of Congress and Mule's stupid best friend but that would be a huge sacrifice from Pelosi's perspective - no more Speaker and they'd never win in the end. She should resist that.
Mueller for President 2020--the best hope for the Dims.
Rest assured that the Mueller Witch Hunt extended far outside the investigations boundaries into other galaxies (at the tax payers expense) looking for dirt, garbage, smut, whatever to sling at President Trump for impeachment material which Nancy knows and to which she (or someone higher) may have even given the acquisition command.
She therefore knows there is NOTHING, and NOWHERE left to look except perhaps the tax expose fiasco.
But in all probability she also knows there is nothing there either because the IRS upper crust is as corrupt as the FBI aristocracy and therefor there is little doubt IMO that she (or someone higher) probably made a secret midnight order of his tax returns for his entire life as a taxpayer which were thoroughly searched and analyzed looking for something, anything. But NOTHING.
However there is some political currency for her in accusing him of "hiding something" just because he won't allow them to be seized against the constitution's protection of private documents and papers.
Hey - she has already falsely accused him of a cover up.
But who knows? She just might cave to the marxist progressives.
She therefore knows there is NOTHING, and NOWHERE left to look except perhaps the tax expose fiasco.
But in all probability she also knows there is nothing there either because the IRS upper crust is as corrupt as the FBI aristocracy and therefor there is little doubt IMO that she (or someone higher) probably made a secret midnight order of his tax returns for his entire life as a taxpayer which were thoroughly searched and analyzed looking for something, anything. But NOTHING.
However there is some political currency for her in accusing him of "hiding something" just because he won't allow them to be seized against the constitution's protection of private documents and papers.
Hey - she has already falsely accused him of a cover up.
But who knows? She just might cave to the marxist progressives.
I think that Pelosi has to allow the House to impeach or she herself will be accused of a cover-up and lose her job to AOC or even Maxine Waters. Mueller clearly accused Trump of a crime but said that he could not prove it. The Democrats have to impeach.
"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 proverbial 800 lb gorilla in the room is that there is NO BASIS for impeachment, no high crime or misdemeanor worthy of impeachment.
Also a cover up won't work either unless it is actually covering SOMETHING up.
The marxist don't care and would not be ashamed to say we will impeach him simply because "he doesn't deserve to be president" but Nancy and the establishmentarians do care because they know the general public wouldn't stand for an impeachment without at least something tantamount to the infamous "soiled dress".
Then there is the Senate.
Don't forget he's a Republican. A NeverTrump Republican.
Of course, the Senate is not going to convict, but does that matter? As for the basis, Mueller said that he just couldn't prove a crime. I am sure that the House needs more time to investigate to find proof of a crime that Mueller couldn't prove.
A lot of people switch parties or run on the other party. Dems are trying to portray themselves as GOP in conservative areas in order to get elected. Mueller would be flattered to be the Dem nominee--those are his friends.
They cannot do that. You cannot prosecute as sitting president. Now the congress can start an investigation (probably using much of the Muller report) and then make a determination to impeach or not impeach. Even then they cannot prosecute until he is removed from office. Congress can transfer the found information to the State in which the crime was committed... in that case New York State.
On this general subject, I have heard some people express the idea that the DOJ finding was brought about to cover for Trump. From what I could find, it goes back much further. Two key dates in the following link are 1973 (Nixon) and 2000 (Clinton).
A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Nothing stopped him from saying he believed crimes had been committed by the Pr*sident.
Instead, we got a convoluted statement saying we can't say "yes" or "no" as to whether the Pr*sident committed a crime, so we will let the Congress decide.
That is an outrageous, political statement from a prosecutor that is suppose to be unbiased.
Professional standards should have been adhered to, in this case he didn't adhere to them. If a prosecutor is not going to indict then he should remain quiet. The Democrats have now politicized the justice system and criminalized the political system. Way to go Dims!
No, Hank, Mule himself said in that joke of a press conference that the Russian trolls deserved the presumption of innocence, railroading was just for Trump.
The dust has NOT settled yet, but it's looking like Pelosi is not going to take the bait and go for impeachment, a shame. Note the front runner Joe Joe has not called for impeachment hearings to begin, unlike some of his doomed contenders for his nomination - that party runs top down, Mueller was just trying to help the retarded giant (and himself), Fail,
The dust has NOT settled yet, but it's looking like Pelosi is not going to take the bait and go for impeachment, a shame. Note the front runner Joe Joe has not called for impeachment hearings to begin, unlike some of his doomed contenders for his nomination - that party runs top down, Mueller was just trying to help the retarded giant (and himself), Fail,
Trump is being treated as guilty until proven innocent.