Legal defintions and "you say tomato and I say to-maat-to"
EEE
location: Landscape Challenged Illinois
listening to: 16 Horsepower, black music from the 70's & and still going broke from Paste Magazine
registered: 2002.08.26
posts: 3227
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
As Reg pointed out, we've yet to learn what is in the report, so we are going to get a lot of other peoples' telling us what is in the report, with that, some general observations...Who knows, in the strictness sense and in the end the proper legal definition, there is a possibility that to Mueller the evidence for a charge of the Russia conspiracy/election involvement may not have been legally present. For example, to the layperson, too often "murder" is thrown around when it is not the proper legal term for say a case of involuntary manslaughter. To illustrate, recall the transit police officer that shot and killed the man on the train platform years ago out in the Northwest. Activists kept throwing out the word "murder" and the man was charged with "murder" however, acquitted of the murder charge because it was not the appropriately charged offense. Possibly Mueller did not see the need link between Trump and Putin to garnish a conspiracy charge (to the layperson it may be hard to understand how the Trump Tower meeting and all other contacts between Trump's people and Russians did not do this, however, again, possibly in Mueller's mind he did not see a prosecutable link between the two). Also, it is now appearing that Mueller left the obstruction point open for others and Barr took it upon himself to not push for an indictment. Now, to me, I simply don't get how the Trump interview where he admitted firing Comey for the Russia probe did not rise to obstruction, as well as all of the other things Trump has done). Oh, well...and on it goes...
E
EEE
(view)
As Reg pointed out, we've yet to learn what is in the report, so we are going to get a lot of other peoples' telling us what is in the report, with that, some general observations...Who knows, in the strictness sense and in the end the proper legal definition, there is a possibility that to Mueller the evidence for a charge of the Russia conspiracy/election involvement may not have been legally present. For example, to the layperson, too often "murder" is thrown around when it is not the proper legal term for say a case of involuntary manslaughter. To illustrate, recall the transit police officer that shot and killed the man on the train platform years ago out in the Northwest. Activists kept throwing out the word "murder" and the man was charged with "murder" however, acquitted of the murder charge because it was not the appropriately charged offense. Possibly Mueller did not see the need link between Trump and Putin to garnish a conspiracy charge (to the layperson it may be hard to understand how the Trump Tower meeting and all other contacts between Trump's people and Russians did not do this, however, again, possibly in Mueller's mind he did not see a prosecutable link between the two). Also, it is now appearing that Mueller left the obstruction point open for others and Barr took it upon himself to not push for an indictment. Now, to me, I simply don't get how the Trump interview where he admitted firing Comey for the Russia probe did not rise to obstruction, as well as all of the other things Trump has done). Oh, well...and on it goes...
