I enjoy a good debate, unfortunately I couldn't find one here today. Maybe later.
That would be an attempt on the hiring persons part, so again, not one of my examples.
"If you call somebody and threaten their life and the police find evidence supporting the fact that you were planning that person's murder, you will be locked up for a long time"
Would this person be charged with murder?
Your logic is greatly flawed and not based in reality.
"John's" get busted all the time without actually getting the sex they paid the undercover officer for.
People are convicted all the time for hiring a hit man, whether a murder was carried out or not.
If you call somebody and threaten their life and the police find evidence supporting the fact that you were planning that person's murder, you will be locked up for a long time.
If you are a suspected terrorist and all the wire taps, surveillance and evidence proves you are planning a terrorist attack, you will be locked up for life without committing the crime.
Thanks for all of those examples. So if you plan a murder but don't attempt or complete the murder are you charged with murder?
When presented with clear evidence of a crime, prosecution is a formality. You know this counselor.
James Comey laying out the case against Hillary and not charge her would be a great example of that.
The really frightening thing that came to light from Muller's testimony yesterday was when he stated that the Russians are still trying to interfere with our elections.
One would hope that this would have been a call to action for the Democrats leading congress to do something to stop it, but I suspect that they would rather just keep on trying to bring down Trump instead
Who was in charge of the country when Russia was doing all this?
I would love to see a judge's face if a prosecutor said: Your honor we need to indite this man for murder because we can't prove he didn't kill somebody.
report does not conclude Trump committed a crime and it does not exonerate him
so basically the report is neutral on the issue of Trump committing a crime
like I said - yesterdays s#it show helped Trump and improved his chances of being reelected
Neutral doesn't meet the standard for indictment.
"Mueller exonerated a lot of people, meaning he did not have any or enough dirt on them to convict."
So anybody not convicted is exonerated? I think you're slowly coming around to reality.
He was basically saying Trump is guilty. Is that a simple enough answer? Mueller exonerated a lot of people, meaning he did not have any or enough dirt on them to convict. He did not exonerate Trump because he has enough to convict.
1. Your answer is simple and wrong.
2. Please tell us who he exonerated by name in his report.
3. Why wouldn't he indite those involved in the case and leave Trump as an unindited coconsperator?
I didn't touch your first question, because I honestly don't understand what you are asking?
Plenty of evidence for obstruction conviction, slam dunk. Trump's position as President saved him. He will probably be indicted for obstruction once he leaves his position. Does that answer your question?
Very simple question. Let me simplify it. You stated that Mueller didn't exonerate Trump. My question "show me the legal aspect of a prosecutor needing to find someone innocence?" Under what legal theory does an investigator need to prove the subject of their investigation did not commit a criminal act? I've never had a prosecutor tell me to prove someone didn't commit a crime.
Clinton Foundation is still there. Not sure what you mean.
I see, you voted for him, defend him and will vote for him next year, but he's not your guy. Sorry, I was confused.
Not a fan of backing people as they all will do something to screw up and let you down. I am a fan of results though.
I notice you didn't respond to the first part of my comment, any thoughts on that?
If it helps with your confusion;
I did not vote for Trump yrump in the primary .
I have not attended any Trump events.
I do not own any Trump gear(MAGA hats, signs, flags, etc)
I have never donated time or money to the Trump campaign.
Can you imagine taking a criminal case to a prosecutor and saying. You need to indite this guy because the investigators can't prove he didn't do it?
It sounded to me like there is enough evidence. Mueller said he didn't exonerate Trump, he also said the DOJ opinion is why they didn't indict him now. Though he did walk that back after lunch( read: "The lawyers told me I shouldn't have said that").
Don't forget, your boy needs to win to stay out of jail, because the statute of limitations on his charity law breaking is up 6 months after the election. You know, the charity that he had to shutdown last year.
That makes a great talking point but could you show me the legal aspect of a prosecutor needing to find someone innocence?
I think if you have read my comments you would realize I didn't vote for Trump in 16 as much as I voted against Hillary, so not my boy.
BTW reference a charity shutting down after the election check out the Clinton foundation.
The one thing I learned and I'm sure Trump heard, was when Mueller said they could indict Trump once he is out of office.
I agree with the statement as applied to the DOJ opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted. It's true a president can be indicted after they are no longer in office. What wasn't answered is if there was enough evidence from this investigation to indite/convict Trump when he leaves office.
As I like to do after a big political event I made more coffee than normal and scanned to cable news shows. The responses to the Mueller hearings were very interesting.
MSNBC was very down during their reporting. It was like their favorite uncle Bob died and they couldn't cope with it. Nonstop bashing of Trump and Republicans plus bestowing sainthood on on Mueller even though he disappointed them.
CNN wasn't as sullen and the spin was more metered. The big thing they discovered was that impeachment was not likely at this point.
Headline News has moved on to other stories.
Fox as you might expect was favorable to the Republicans but did something the other outlets didn't do. They showed question and answers from both Republicans and Democrats. None of the others showed questions by the Republicans and dismissed them as being mean to Saint Mueller.
Lessons drawn from my morning.
1. The hearings were a waste if time for both sides but definitely didn't help the dems.
2. Muellers performance was well below his ability.
3. The dems now love Patriots and war heros.
4. The majority of the media is still pissed off at Trump.
5. Nancy Pelosi is trying real hard to keep her caucus from destroying itself.
6. My coffee was the high point of the morning and watching MSNBC is a real downer.
$15 per hour minimum wage will put the screws to a lot of retired people. What's the minimum wage for people on social security?