I think they will end up making a referral but you’re right, Mueller shows why this sort of dancing doesn’t work. Mueller clearly believed Trump had committed one or more crimes but by refusing to say so for the sake of appearances allowed dishonest people to claim otherwise.Jan. 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending (Published 2022)
Despite concluding that it has enough evidence, the committee is concerned that making a referral to the Justice Department would backfire by politicizing the investigation into the Capitol riot.www.nytimes.com
Evidence is there.
But optics.
And gaming.
And scheming.
What about duty? And not reinforcing what everyone already knows, that rule of law is for thee.
www.nbcnews.com
Also I think people vastly overestimate their ability to predict how those dominos will fall so when in doubt do what you think is right.
So Mueller spent a couple of years time and millions of taxpayer dollars investigating Trumps crimes then decided to leave critical information out of his report?
put archive.is/ in front of the url to bypass any paywall. too bad you have me on ignore.
Nope, it's all in the report. Mueller repeatedly details how Trump fulfilled all the necessary elements for indictment on multiple crimes.
www.lawfareblog.com
Nope, it's all in the report. Mueller repeatedly details how Trump fulfilled all the necessary elements for indictment on multiple crimes.
If you're interested in an in-depth legal analysis of the statements in the report it's here:
Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map
The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter
Essentially any time you see three red boxes that means sufficient evidence for indictment. When you see something less than that it gets a little fuzzier.
Also, not that the original cost of $25M was a lot of money, but Mueller's report made money for the Govt. Quit repeating this lie.
archive.thinkprogress.org
Guy who totally doesn't consume conservative media trots out tired old conservative media talking points that dishonestly frame what was in the Mueller report.
This is of course exactly what I'm talking about - because Mueller said he wouldn't make a 'prosecutorial judgment' because no matter what his findings are DOJ policy says you can't indict the president years later we have people still claiming the report didn't show how Trump had committed crimes despite it very clearly doing so.
Also, not that the original cost of $25M was a lot of money, but Mueller's report made money for the Govt. Quit repeating this lie.
At a reported cost of $25 million, Mueller probe has paid for itself
Paul Manafort effectively has paid for the Russia investigation.
Mueller Report 2.0? Does this version come with more of the investigators getting in trouble than the subjects of the investigation like 1.0 did? Does the 2.0 version get new and improved Russian disinformation paid for by the Bidens and the DNC?Jan. 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending (Published 2022)
Despite concluding that it has enough evidence, the committee is concerned that making a referral to the Justice Department would backfire by politicizing the investigation into the Capitol riot.
Evidence is there.
But optics.
And gaming.
And scheming.
What about duty? And not reinforcing what everyone already knows, that rule of law is for thee.
That is an interesting take on investigating Trump-Russia collusion. As long as we turn a profit, it's ok to run shame investigations.
Your dum-dum interference strategy is so super old. Just zip it.
Lost another chromosome? Dont think youll find it here but feel free to look around. Bless you.
You realize that money came after Manafort was tried and convicted, correct?
Oh he's well aware. He's just dishonest about these types of "questionable" subjects that he can throw FUD on, even if/when they are quite clear cut. See RWNJ media for examples of how he/they come to these conclusions. It's a hell of a lot of dishonesty to convince the rest of the less-intelligent voting base. And unfortunately, it works too well with the imbeciles.
Facebook
Twitter