Oh and by the way you can still participate in this thread we'll just start another one...

First you would need to take your head out of your ass.

I’ll wait.

Out of respect to the board and mods, here would be best. Begin any time.

First you would need to take your head out of your ass.

I’ll wait. — NOS4A2

Honestly, the sooner the better, but that is up to you. You seem to like the view.

Nope I told you dude, it's you and me, a heavyweight title fight.

I will call it something like ' the 2020 election'...

Honestly, the sooner the better, but that is up to you. You seem to like the view.

Either I’m in over my head or not. What was I wrong about?

Either I’m in over my head or not. What was I wrong about? — NOS4A2

Start by researching the legal concepts of the presumption of innocence and probable cause.

I think we're seeing the end of the Trump presidency. The news that's coming out about the Ukraine relationship is clear and unarguable evidence of criminal wrong-doing by Trump. Federal law says it's illegal for anyone to seek foreign help to influence an election - let alone the President, let alone a President who had just been accused of doing that very thing with Russia. He's really shot himself in both feet with this one.

Trump doesn't even seem to comprehend what he's done - that's the astonishing thing about it. He can't understand that he could have done anything wrong, in his own eyes he's 'perfect'.

But it's the Republicans who really hold his fate in their hands. Several, including Romney, are saying that 'this is serious, it's an impeachable offense'. If that takes root amongst more Republicans and begins to snowball, then things could develop very quickly.

The other sub-plot is Giuliani's activities in the Ukraine. He's blindsided a lot of career diplomats and State Department people crashing around trying to find evidence of a non-existent crime.

It's going to be ugly but hopefully at the end of it, the boil will be lanced and America and the rest of the world can resume normal programming.

But it's the Republicans who really hold his fate in their hands. Several, including Romney, are saying that 'this is serious, it's an impeachable offense'. If that takes root amongst more Republicans and begins to snowball, then things could develop very quickly. — Wayfarer

The election is not far off. The Republicans need to seriously consider who their candidate for presidency will be.

Ageed I would like to see a moderate Republican in there someone like Kasich....

I'm definitely fine with a moderate Democrat but I'm not feeling Biden...

Man we really need some moderates to step up

It’s not evidence of their guilt either. Investigations such as Mueller’s are not designed to prove innocence or exonerate anyone; they are to prove guilt. This is simple due process. — NOS4A2

Simple due process is that courts establish guilt. Investigations establish the facts and whether or not these facts are sufficient to indict.

What did he say of the President of the United States?

“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.”

That’s a perversion of of the presumption of innocence. Mueller’s standard is completely unknown to the American legal system. It’s fake, phoney, a sham. special counsel regulations require the special counsel to follow DOJ rules, which includes the presumption of innocence. — NOS4A2

What nonsense. If the presumption of innocence prevented an investigator from establishing anything other than guilt and innocence, how would they establish the probable cause you're so keen on?

A prosecutor can tell you the degree of suspicion they have. That's not a violation of the presumption of innocence.

What would that “something dodgey” be? — NOS4A2

You're just pretending not to know what any of us are talking about.

What nonsense. If the presumption of innocence prevented an investigator from establishing anything other than guilt and innocence, how would they establish the probable cause you're so keen on?

A prosecutor can tell you the degree of suspicion they have. That's not a violation of the presumption of innocence.

The Attorney General had to step in and issue a verdict because oddly the Special Council wouldn’t do it, which is why Barr wrote “no obstruction” in his letter to Congress. You cannot violate the president’s civil liberties.

He had this to say to Congress in a testimony that very matter,

The core civil liberty that underpins our American criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence. Every person enjoys this presumption long before the commencement of any investigation or official proceeding. A federal prosecutor’s task is to decide whether the admissible evidence is sufficient to overcome that presumption and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, he seeks an indictment; if not, he does not. The Special Counsel’s report demonstrates that there are many subsidiary considerations informing that prosecutorial judgment—including whether particular legal theories would extend to the facts of the case and whether the evidence is sufficient to prove one or another element of a crime. But at the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no. That is what I sought to address in my March 24 letter.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/opening-statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-senate-judiciary-committee

But no, for Mueller worshipers, “not exonerated” is their new burden of proof. All they needed was a little authoritarian claptrap in order to assume guilt.

The Attorney General had to step in and issue a verdict because oddly the Special Council wouldn’t do it, which is why Barr wrote “no obstruction” in his letter to Congress. — NOS4A2

Why does an investigation "have to" issue a verdict?

But no, for Mueller worshipers, “not exonerated” is their new burden of proof. All they needed was a little authoritarian claptrap in order to assume guilt. — NOS4A2

What is it that you like to say? Ah yes - pure fantasy.

Why does an investigation "have to" issue a verdict?

The DOJ is to determine whether crimes have been committed and to prosecute those crimes under the principles of federal prosecution.

The DOJ is to determine whether crimes have been committed and to prosecute those crimes under the principles of federal prosecution. — NOS4A2

It's probably more accurate to say that the DOJ exercises oversight over the different prosecutors, whose job it is to investigate and prosecute possible crimes.

It's the job of the courts to determine whether crimes have been committed.

None of that means Barr "had to" step in and deliver a verdict.

It's probably more accurate to say that the DOJ exercises oversight over the different prosecutors, whose job it is to investigate and prosecute possible crimes.

It's the job of the courts to determine whether crimes have been committed.

What? The point of a court is to administer justice.

Law enforcement such as the DOJ determines whether crimes are committed.

Law enforcement such as the DOJ determines whether crimes are committed. — NOS4A2

Err, no. That would be a violation of the presumption of innocence. And "Law enforcement" is too broad anyways, since it includes the police, which is not a judicial organ. The DOJ straddles the boundary between executive and judicative.

What? The point of a court is to administer justice. — NOS4A2

And for criminal courts, that means to determine whether a crime (as defined by the law) has been committed by the accused, for which the accused is guilty.

Err, no. That would be a violation of the presumption of innocence. And "Law enforcement" is too broad anyways, since it includes the police, which is not a judicial organ. The DOJ straddles the boundary between executive and judicative.

Uh yeah. The special council was determining whether crimes were being committed, and in fact determined many crimes were committed.

The courts determine innocence and guilt and sentencing.

Uh yeah. The special council was determining whether crimes were being committed, and in fact determined many crimes were committed. — NOS4A2

He determined there was sufficient cause to suspect those crimes were committed, hence the indictments. But a prosecutor can not go further than to indict someone, and being indicted isn't proof you have committed a crime. Similarly, not being indicted isn't proof you haven't.

Under the presumption of innocence, only a court of law can establish definitively whether or not someone has committed a crime.

The courts determine innocence and guilt and sentencing. — NOS4A2

So, a court does not need to determine whether or not a crime has been committed in order to determine innocence and guilt?

The situation has moved on. The Mueller Inquiry is old news. Now it’s the Ukraine Conversation.

Because they haven't been litigated I say possible because I presume his innocence. But there's plenty in the report that gives me pause (as a lawyer) and believe there's a case - several of them - that can be pursued. Why isn't that your take away from the report?

He determined there was sufficient cause to suspect those crimes were committed, hence the indictments. But a prosecutor can not go further than to indict someone, and being indicted isn't proof you have committed a crime. Similarly, not being indicted isn't proof you haven't.

Under the presumption of innocence, only a court of law can establish definitively whether or not someone has committed a crime.

I didn’t mean that the special council convicted people of crimes. Only that they were determine whether crimes were being committed, ie conspiracy, obstruction, perjury etc. They can and do conclude that people commit crimes.

Under the presumption of innocence one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Because they could not conclude whether Trump committed a crime, he is still presumed innocent. Instead their standard is “not exonerated”, a fake standard which is inimical to civil liberties.

Because they haven't been litigated I say possible because I presume his innocence. But there's plenty in the report that gives me pause (as a lawyer) and believe there's a case - several of them - that can be pursued. Why isn't that your take away from the report?

I am not a lawyer, but neither Mueller or Barr said they should be pursued.

Because they could not conclude whether Trump committed a crime, he is still presumed innocent. — NOS4A2

You keep repeating this. The simple fact is, Mueller found ample evidence that crimes had been committed, however was not empowered to bring charges as his office was not able to charge a sitting President. The message from Mueller, as clear as day, was essentially that it was up to Congress to bring charges, which, much to their disgrace, they did not.

However, as of this week, there is now 'smoking gun' evidence of Trump breaking federal electoral law, to wit, seeking assistance from a foreign power for his own political advantage. There is every chance that articles of impeachment will be filed against Trump in October. Of course it is true that the Senate may choose to acquit but nobody should be under any illusion that what Trump has done is not a criminal act.

I didn’t mean that the special council convicted people of crimes. Only that they were determine whether crimes were being committed, ie conspiracy, obstruction, perjury etc. They can and do conclude that people commit crimes. — NOS4A2

This is fine as ordinary language use, but it's imprecise.
When a prosecutor determines that a crime has been committed, that means he thinks he has sufficient evidence to indict and prosecute.

You originally claimed that Barr "had to" issue a "verdict", and I still don't see any justification for that claim.

Under the presumption of innocence one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Because they could not conclude whether Trump committed a crime, he is still presumed innocent. — NOS4A2

He would actually still be presumed innocent even if they indicted him.

nstead their standard is “not exonerated”, a fake standard which is inimical to civil liberties. — NOS4A2

Who is "they"? Mueller was apparently aware that "not exonerated" is not something he can formally establish, hence he did not use those terms. Trump came up with the claim he had been exonerated, which is false. Presumption of innocence is not the same as being exonerated.

The statement Mueller did make in front of Congress was a careful one, that only referenced his conclusions. Prosecutors can and do conclude whether or not the evidence is so weak, or the counter evidence so strong, that it seems certain that no crime has been committed. In such a case, the subject of the investigation may formally be exonerated, which is merely a public statement, which doesn't have any legal standing and isn't binding, to the effect that there is no reasonable suspicion they committed a crime

Mueller was very clear as to why he did not comment on whether Trump should be "pursued" in his May 29 statement:

And as set forth in the report after that investigation, 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 introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing. And beyond Department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination, one way or the other, about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s — that is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President. — Mueller

In other words, no amount of evidence would have led Mueller to state Trump committed a crime and no amount of evidence would make it possible for prosecutors to indict Trump. But certainly a certain amount of evidence he did not commit a crime, would led him to have stated Trump was innocent unequivocally pursuant to the first paragraph I quoted.

It is then disingenuous to suggest Trump is innocent because Barr and Mueller claim it cannot be pursued. In fact, Mueller even explains the Consitution requires "a process other than the criminal justice sytem" to accuse Trump.

You keep repeating this. The simple fact is, Mueller found ample evidence that crimes had been committed, however was not empowered to bring charges as his office was not able to charge a sitting President. The message from Mueller, as clear as day, was essentially that it was up to Congress to bring charges, which, much to their disgrace, they did not.

However, as of this week, there is now 'smoking gun' evidence of Trump breaking federal electoral law, to wit, seeking assistance from a foreign power for his own political advantage. There is every chance that articles of impeachment will be filed against Trump in October. Of course it is true that the Senate may choose to acquit but nobody should be under any illusion that what Trump has done is not a criminal act.

He did not, as the Attorney General ofThe United States concluded. No collusion. No obstruction. Mueller could have concluded Trump committed crimes, but it appears he wanted to give you a little show trial instead, and of course did so until well after the 2018 election.

The campaign finance accusation was sent to the DOJ and roundly dismissed. This is a political ploy and anti-Trumpists are falling for it—again. Investigations into the Russia investigation is almost complete. Investigation into the FISA abuses are almost complete. Hold on to your hat.

He did not, as the Attorney General ofThe United States concluded. No collusion. No obstruction. Mueller could have concluded Trump committed crimes, but it appears he wanted to give you a little show trial instead, and of course did so until well after the 2018 election.

The campaign finance accusation was sent to the DOJ and roundly dismissed. This is a political ploy and anti-Trumpists are falling for it—again. Investigations into the Russia investigation is almost complete. Investigation into the FISA abuses are almost complete. Hold on to your hat. — NOS4A2

There's a problem with this. The accusation of FISA abuse entails that the reigning administration of the time (e.g. Obama's) and law enforcement agencies (e.g. the FBI) cannot necessarily be trusted to operate within the law and will let their political biases drive their decision-making.

And so of course the same can be said about Barr. He's a Republican Trump-appointee, and his decision not to press charges and to exonerate Trump is politically driven bias, as the evidence collected by Mueller does in fact indicate criminal wrongdoing – and perhaps the next administration will conduct their own investigation into DOJ abuses re. the handling of the Mueller investigation.

There's a problem with this. The accusation of FISA abuse entails that the reigning administration of the time (e.g.Obama's) and law enforcement agencies (e.g. the FBI) cannot be trusted to operate within the law and will let their political biases drive their decision-making.

And so of course the same can be said about Barr. He's a Republican Trump-appointee, and his decision not to press charges and to exonerate Trump is politically driven bias, as the evidence collected by Mueller does in fact indicate criminal wrongdoing – and perhaps the next administration will conduct their own investigation into DOJ abuses re. the handling of the Mueller investigation.

That’s very true. Hopefully the FISA court and the DOJ gets a massive overhaul.