already indicated there is not enough evidence to charge GD>>the President with anything.No it was not left open, it was left up to William Barr and GD>>he has
absence.What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence DD>>of
Where's my beer? I know it was here. Right on this table ...
Ward may have supped it.
Watch...
I do not believe President Donald Trump will finish his single term in
office as the highest rated president in history.
Now that the investigation is over, I see no reason why he will not only finish his term but win with 'dramatic fashion' another 4 years.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
Now take a look at yours at the same site
But he never claimed that their economy was fantastic, did he?
No he didn't but that was not the intention, it was as it has been
(for a while now) to create negative narrative where none should exist.
I'm not really that angry, Trump does not impinge much on my lifestyle.
I was more thinking about the act being carried out by a USAmerican
resident, one who seriously feels fucked over by Trump's actions. Maybe
even a relative of someone stuck behind a wall...
The type person your talking I feel is lazy and wants everything handed to them.
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you GD>areAustralia?
Unreachable? Your message has reached me, what are you alluding to?
What I am talking is the topic of assassination of the President should be one those taboo subjects that is not mentioned.
You are entitled to your opinion, however much it sucks.
It does if your on the left or are a liberal, socialist, communist.
but you are right I am entitled to my opinion.
I am sure that there are people out there who would welcome DD>the demiseof Mr Trump - in some form or other.
Look at the enthusiasm for the "Russia-gate" debacle.
Everyone knows now where that came from.
As there was no evidence of collusion, no obstruction with Trump.
The Mueller Report is 300 pages and the summary of the Barr statement is 4.
The left is trying to manipulate and misrepresent - it's all lies.
I predict that The he Deep state is very serious in trouble.
I'm not really that angry, Trump does not impinge much on my lifestyle.
I was more thinking about the act being carried out by a USAmerican
resident, one who seriously feels fucked over by Trump's actions. Maybe
even a relative of someone stuck behind a wall...
The type person your talking I feel is lazy and wants everything handed to them.
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you ar
Australia?
Unreachable? Your message has reached me, what are you alluding to?
What I am talking is the topic of assassination of the President should be one those taboo subjects that is not mentioned.
You are entitled to your opinion, however much it sucks.
It does if your on the left or are a liberal, socialist, communist.
but you are right I am entitled to my opinion.
I am sure that there are people out there who would welcome the demise
of Mr Trump - in some form or other. Look at the enthusiasm for the
"Russia-gate" debacle.
Everyone knows now where that came from.
As there was no evidence of collusion, no obstruction with Trump.
The Mueller Report is 300 pages and the summary of the Barr statement is 4.
The left is trying to manipulate and misrepresent - it's all lies.
I predict that The he Deep state is very serious in trouble.
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you are in
Australia?
That was really a dumb statement that you just made.
I do not believe David realized what he did. Posted his message
on the 38th-year anniversary of the John Hinckley Jr shooting of
President Ronald Reagan and three others.
Still no excuse. Wishing a man dead is never in good taste.
Not everybody takes AG Bill Barr's word for it.
According to whom? There is lots of talk out there about the assassination of US presidents - it has happened a few times.
I am lead to believe that the presidents (present and past) get around with
quite a security contingent - so they must talk about it too.
inDo you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you are
Australia?
That was really a dumb statement that you just made.
I do not believe David realized what he did. Posted his message
on the 38th-year anniversary of the John Hinckley Jr shooting of
President Ronald Reagan and three others.
And you have these dates store in your "easy to recall" memory?
Still no excuse. Wishing a man dead is never in good taste.
Even when that person is Mr Asad, Kim or Hussein? How about the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? Does no-one in USA wish his demise?
Not everybody takes AG Bill Barr's word for it.
Certainly those who *want* there to be evidence of collusion don't. Good luck with your conspiracy theories.
You cannot disprove a negative.
I think you mean you cannot PROVE a negative, but either way yes, ofcourse
you can prove negatives. We do it every day.
There's no money in my bank account. Here's my account statement.
There are no tall short men.
Ted is innocent of that crime. See? Here's his obituary.
can be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
"Refuses"? It's been all of four days since Mueller delivered thereport to
Barr, and Barr explicitly stated in his letter to Congress that theDOJ is
currently reviewing the report to determine which parts of it may belegally
released. Where do people get this "Barr refuses to release thereport" stuff?
rulerThe AG decided all by himself that nobody else has the right to
even read the report, as he alone is God Almighty and absolute
No, he didn't. It was the aftermath of the Saturday Night Massacrewhich
led Democrats to push for greater independence of the specialprosecutor
and ultimately to the Ethics in Government Act, signed into law byCarter in
1978, which requires the independent counsel to report to the AG.
Barr did not decide "all by himself". He's following laws put inplace by
Democrats.
reportedby the AG as to what happened. But the actual truth, as
by Mueller, in its entirety.
You're not going to get it. The report undoubtedly contains classifiedjeopardize
information protected by law, lots of information that could
informants and other government operatives, and information oninnocent
individuals the public has no right to see. What we'll see will be,at best, a
heavily redacted release, which will allow you to continue tocomplain about
how somebody's hiding something.
If the Corruptocrats in congress get a hold of the whole report, it
will be all over the leftist media within seconds regardless of how
much classified or sensitive information is contained in it. Congress -
particularly but not exclusively Corruptocrats in congress - has been
a sieve for classified information for the past half century.
If you are talking about the Mueller Special Counsel, there have
been multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of which have
named Trump a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
I take it that you have no response to this that does not shake up
your myopic view of the world. And so you pivot to something else.
Not pivoting now am I ?
Trump was vindicated, and what do I hear in here ?
Crickets...
Probably. But there's a difference between 'finding no proof' and "it didn't happen".
Ward Dossche wrote to Gregory Deyss <=-
Fact: Muller and his team of Special counsel- 16 seasoned prosecutors. could not find any collusion.
Probably. But there's a difference between 'finding no proof' and
"it didn't happen".
The first one is based on scientific *FACTUAL* evidence.
Please... afaik neither jurisprudence nor politics claim to be evidence-based science.
Manifort gave campaign data to a Russian cut-out. Plus there were
Although Mueller appeared to rule out criminal collusion, he
did not draw a conclusion one way or the other in regards to
obstruction of justice. Trump's claim of total exoneration
is a false claim, as Barr's summary shows, citing Mueller as
having set out "evidence on both sides of the question" and
stated that "while this report does not conclude the president
committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
There is an answer to your unspoken words.
But first this last sentence "it also does not exonerate him" will be used much as a life preserver is used to keep afloat with the narrative that maybe there is some hope, "forgetaboutit" it's over!
Enough time & money has been spent.
The Mueller team has wrapped up their case, the brightest legal minds on the
left; together they couldn't power an Edison light bulb...
The unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap of William Barr U.S. Attorney General and he already concluded there is not enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
I really wish the Republicans would stand up and say " My Turn..."
As they reveal and uncover what the real collusion was and how it all started, expose the left for what it really is, and what went on here.
I do have the better chance of that happening in half the time that it took
the democrats to spend all that money and time to come up with a whole lot of nothing.
If you are talking about the Mueller Special
Counsel, there have been
multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of
which have named Trump
a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
I take it that you have no response to this that does not shake up your
myopic view of the world. And so you pivot to something else.
Not pivoting now am I ? Trump was vindicated, and what do I hear in
here ? Crickets...
Mueller did not vidicate Trump. He left the question of obstruction
open. We may well find out more if/when we get to see the Mueller
report instead of just the cliff-note version from Barr.
The unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap of William
Barr U.S. Attorney General
That is exactly what he was charged with doing. Mueller reported to the AG. And then the AG gave us *his* opinion.
and he already concluded there is not
enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
How do you know that?
The truth is that Justice department policy is that they cannot charge the President with anything.
That is up to Congress.
The unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap GD>of WilliamBarr U.S. Attorney General
That is exactly what he was charged with doing. Mueller reported to the AG.
And then the AG gave us *his* opinion.
and he already concluded there is not
enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
How do you know that? The truth is that Justice department policy is
that they cannot charge the President with anything. That is up to Congress.
You cannot disprove a negative.
can be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
The AG decided all by himself that nobody else has the right to
even read the report, as he alone is God Almighty and absolute ruler
Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Please... afaik neither jurisprudence nor politics claim to be
evidence-based science.
Nice job snipping all the context of what I wrote, in order to
make your reply seem more valid.
The one sentence of yours I didn't quote? The one sentence by
Ward I didn't quote?
I really cannot see what you're complaining about here.
Anyone should be able to use threading to look up context
(if it should be missing).
Very easy to spot that kind of bullshit, and laugh at it.
Yeah, and a rather obvious attempt of yours to escape argueing
based on content (or even "facts"). I hope you're happy that I
quoted this important note of yours this time. ;-)
That is a far cry from what is Constitutional, as it has been shown
that any president can be indicted. Vice President Spiro Agnew was indicted.
But first this last sentence "it also does not exonerate him" will be used
much as a life preserver is used to keep afloat with the narrative that
maybe there is some hope, "forgetaboutit" it's over!
You cannot disprove a negative. But exposing a lie for what it is
can be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
the American people, choosing to sweep the Mueller report under the
rug in a vain effort to defend his beloved.
Mueller did not vidicate Trump. He left the question of obstruction
open.
No it was not left open, it was left up to William Barr and he has already indicated there is not enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
Is it true what they're saying, that Mueller is a Putin shill?
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
Barr did not decide "all by himself". He's following laws put in place by Democrats.
Is it true what they're saying, that Mueller is a Putin shill?
Of course it's true. How else could you explain him not finding any evidence
of Trump's guilt?
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
True, but in court the absence of evidence *is* absence of guilt.
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
True, but in court the absence of evidence *is* absence of guilt.
"convict". Still doesn't prove he didn't do it.
Doesn't change the facts, such as they are.
Why is AG Barr trying to hide the report from the American people?
What does he know that he is not telling us?
Be patient. I think the report will be released. The outcry will make it so.
I agree the American people have every right to have the report released.
But if the Kracken is released it can not be put back.
It will be damming for the left, once it is learned of what happened and why.
Watch...
WilliaThe unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap of
Barr U.S. Attorney General
That is exactly what he was charged with doing. Mueller reported tothe
AG. And then the AG gave us *his* opinion.
Opinion??? What I would offer would be a opinion...
What the William Barr says is the law of land and it is the FINAL word on the
matter.
For how long should we all remain patient? Ken Starr
released his entire 445-page report to the public.
Myself, I prefer Occam
That is a far cry from what is Constitutional, as it has been shown
that any president can be indicted. Vice President Spiro Agnew was
indicted.
You argue that a president can be indicted, then offer a VICE-president as an example. In any case, AFAIA Agnew was never actually indicted before he resigned.
The question of whether a sitting president can be criminally indicted while
in office is one that has never been answered,
nor does the Constitution provide unambiguous guidance.
Whether he can in theory, in practice what would likely happen, absent "high
crimes or misdemeanors",
is that the president's lawyer would argue that the case should be delayed,
and all records sealed, until the president has left office. The courts would in all likelihood agree.
In the case of high crimes and misdemeanors (which the Constitution does not
define) the process is impeachment by the House, followed by conviction by the Senate.
However, a Senate conviction does no more than remove the
president from office.
Criminal indictment and potential criminal conviction
would only follow after the president's removal.
It is by no means clear whether a sitting president can be criminally indicted or convicted while in office.
The closest we ever came was Nixon, but he had the good sense to resign before the courts had the opportunity to weigh in on the question.
A further question that would need to be answered before indicting the president is who would bring the charges?
It's not at all clear that an independent counsel has such constitutional authority, nor has the question been tested in court.
That alone may explain why Mueller left the question up
to the DOJ.
You cannot disprove a negative.
I think you mean you cannot PROVE a negative, but either way yes, of course
you can prove negatives. We do it every day.
There's no money in my bank account. Here's my account statement.
There are no tall short men.
Ted is innocent of that crime. See? Here's his obituary.
can be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
"Refuses"? It's been all of four days since Mueller delivered the report to
Barr, and Barr explicitly stated in his letter to Congress that the DOJ is currently reviewing the report to determine which parts of it may be legally
released. Where do people get this "Barr refuses to release the report" stuff?
The AG decided all by himself that nobody else has the right to
even read the report, as he alone is God Almighty and absolute ruler
No, he didn't.
It was the aftermath of the Saturday Night Massacre which led Democrats to push for greater independence of the special prosecutor
and ultimately to the Ethics in Government Act, signed into law by Carter in
1978, which requires the independent counsel to report to the AG.
Barr did not decide "all by himself".
He's following laws put in place by Democrats.
by the AG as to what happened. But the actual truth, as reported
by Mueller, in its entirety.
You're not going to get it. The report undoubtedly contains classified information protected by law, lots of information that could jeopardize informants and other government operatives, and information on innocent individuals the public has no right to see.
What we'll see will be, at best, a heavily redacted release, which will allow you to continue to complain about how somebody's hiding something.
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
True, but in court the absence of evidence *is* absence of guilt.
that depends on the court... some places are "guilty until proven innocent"...
be usedBut first this last sentence "it also does not exonerate him" will
thatmuch as a life preserver is used to keep afloat with the narrative
maybe there is some hope, "forgetaboutit" it's over!
You cannot disprove a negative. But exposing a lie for what it is
can be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
the American people, choosing to sweep the Mueller report under the
rug in a vain effort to defend his beloved.
Is it true what they're saying, that Mueller is a Putin shill?
Just because a person is found "not guilty" does not mean he/she
is innocent. ... Mueller is not saying Trump is innocent. He is
saying he could
not find enough evidence to support the contention he may be guilty.
Mueller handed in the report to the AG, who decided Trump is innocent
of any criminal wrongdoing.
Certainly AG Bill Barr can, and should, do the same in regards to
the Mueller report.
Why should any of the report be redacted, or censored? The
This is a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel -
"Well, the president can't be indicted, but the vice president can."
Only if a president is impeached might he argue for the trial
in the Senate to be delayed. More likely he would argue for a
AG Elliot Richardson convinced Spiro Agnew to resign from office
rather than be indicted. Had the AG not had the legal right to do
He said he did not think there was enough evidence to pursue an
obstruction of justice case against Trump.
If there was not enough evidence, it means there was some evidence then ...
If there was not enough evidence, it means there was some evidence then
For how long should we all remain patient? Ken Starr
released his entire 445-page report to the public.
Different rules.
Back then the special counsel reported directly to
Congress and was free to release his report publicly.
You may not remember the huge controversy that erupted over Starr's public release of his report, especially the lurid sexual detail the report went into, but it was BECAUSE of that controversy that the rules were changed --
by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno -- requiring the independent counsel to deliver his report directly to the AG, and giving the AG full discretion over whether or how much should be publicly released.
Once again, Mueller is simply following rules put in place by Democrats.
Mueller did not vidicate Trump. He left the question of obstruction
open.
No it was not left open, it was left up to William Barr and he hasalready
indicated there is not enough evidence to charge the President with
anything.
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Once again, Mueller is simply following rules put in place by Democrats.
Myself, I prefer Occam
I have a beard.
Just because a person is found "not guilty" does not mean he/shemay be guilty.
is innocent. ... Mueller is not saying Trump is innocent. He is
saying he could not find enough evidence to support the contention LL>he
Sorry, you're playing semantic games trying to hold onto the possibility of
Trump's guilt.
Mueller did not say "I could not find 'enough' evidence that he "may be" guilty."
On the assumption Barr's description is accurate,
Mueller said, "There is no evidence that any crime was committed." Note the
lack of weasel words.
Mueller handed in the report to the AG, who decided Trump is LL>innocentof any criminal wrongdoing.
You're choosing your words carelessly.
After going into a long spiel on the distinctions between "innocent" and "not guilty", you should realize that Barr said no such thing.
He said he did not think there was enough evidence to pursue an obstruction
of justice case against Trump.
Certainly AG Bill Barr can, and should, do the same in regards to
the Mueller report.
Again, Starr and Barr (hm, I think there's a song in there somewhere) are operating under different rules.
Why should any of the report be redacted, or censored? The
I explained why: it may well contain classified material protected by law;
it may contain grand jury information sealed by courts;
it may contain information that could compromise US security interests,
expose US operatives to danger,
or violate privacy expectations of innocent individuals;
and so forth.
No, the public does *not* have the right to see every last unfettered
word of the report.
He said he did not think there was enough evidence
to pursue an obstruction of justice case against Trump.
If there was not enough evidence, it means there was some evidence then ...
This is a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel -
"Well, the president can't be indicted, but the vice president can."
You're citing a memorandum as if were settled case law. It's nothing of the
sort; it's merely a legal opinion.
Only if a president is impeached might he argue for the trial
in the Senate to be delayed. More likely he would argue for a
No, I was not talking about a Senate trial; I was talking about criminal proceedings.
Think Clinton v. Jones, or Cheney v. District of Columbia.
AG Elliot Richardson convinced Spiro Agnew to resign from office
rather than be indicted. Had the AG not had the legal right to do
Again, the question has never been answered by the courts,
so whether the AG has the right is still an open debate.
It may well be that Richardson believed he had that right;
whether the courts would have agreed with him we don't know.
If there was not enough evidence, it means there was some evidence then
There was evidence of certains actions undertaken by Trump. The salient question was one of interpretation: did those actions constitute obstruction?
Mueller declined to decide, and so Barr, in his own words, "concluded that the evidence ... is not sufficient to establish ... an obstruction of justice
offense."
No it was not left open, it was left up to William Barr and he has already
indicated there is not enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Where's my beer? I know it was here. Right on this table ...
I do not believe President Donald Trump will finish his single term in
office as the highest rated president in history.
Now that the investigation is over, I see no reason why he will not only finish his term but win with 'dramatic fashion' another 4 years.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic and theirs is not.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
Now take a look at yours at the same site
Now that the investigation is over, I see no reason why he will not or
finish his term but win with 'dramatic fashion' another 4 years.
Or be assassinated by someone who really cares about the peoples of the
USA.
More promises have been kept than any other President before him.
Such a person who would think of assassination does process the ability to care for anyone but their own anger.
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you are in Australia?
That was really a dumb statement that you just made.
GK>
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Now take a look at yours at the same site https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth
Yeah... I wouldn't be talking there Gerrit.
termI do not believe President Donald Trump will finish his single
office as the highest rated president in history.
not oNow that the investigation is over, I see no reason why he will
finish his term but win with 'dramatic fashion' another 4 years.
Or be assassinated by someone who really cares about the peoples ofthe
USA.
More promises have been kept than any other President before him.
Such a person who would think of assassination does process the ability to care for anyone but their own anger.
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you are in Australia?
That was really a dumb statement that you just made.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
Now take a look at yours at the same site
But he never claimed that their economy was fantastic, did he?
| Sysop: | altere |
|---|---|
| Location: | Houston, TX |
| Users: | 60 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 24:07:35 |
| Calls: | 516 |
| Files: | 7,033 |
| Messages: | 288,235 |