Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cain said:
I can see why someone with your poor comprehension would infer such a thing.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I have the actual words which say:

Rosenstein: "...if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens."

And you have you exciting anecdote about a student writing an essay...

Hmm, that does seem close! After all I have the person explaining why they "have no business making allegations against American citizens," and you have a student who bought an essay on line...

Well that plus the fine argument:

i cAn sEe wHy sOmEoNe wItH YoUr pOoR CoMpReHeNsIoN WoUlD InFeR SuCh a tHiNg.
 
The Big Dog said:
Hmm, I have the actual words which say:

Rosenstein: "...if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens."...
Click to expand...

Clue: You're wasting your time. No one cares about your pedantry, other than perhaps being mildly annoyed by it.

Everyone knows the standard of proof in the courtroom is much higher than the standards we all use every day. What we all know to a high level of certainty often differs from what we can prove in court.

But that does not mean we don't know what we know.
 
Last edited:
Iamafalser said:
Clever wording there. A prosecutor can decide there is not sufficient evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore not prosecute. In such a situation the prosecutor has decided there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" without any input from a judge or jury.
Click to expand...

Agree. There is nothing special or unusual about this wording.

DAs and assistant DAs do this all the time. If there is not enough evidence to convict, they will often not go forward with a case without more investigation. The reason is easy to understand; if they take a case to court, and anything happens after jeopardy has attached, e.g. the case is dismissed (with prejudice of course), or the defendant is found not guilty, then its game over.

When prosecutors are sure that the suspect did the crime but they know they will be unable to prove it on court due to, say, insufficient evidence, they will often rather leave the suspect free for the time being (under a cloud of suspicion) than risk them being free and never being liable to prosecution for that crime.
 
Toontown said:
Clue: You're wasting your time. No one cares about your pedantry, other than perhaps being mildly annoyed by it.

Everyone knows the standard of proof in the courtroom is much higher than the standards we all use every day. What we all know to to a high level of certainty often differs from what we can prove in court.

But that does not mean we don't know what we know.
Click to expand...

Quoting Rosenstein's words is now pedantry, and "skeptics" are now declaring that no matter what the Mueller report says, (and based on what Rosenstein said, it ain't gonna mention anything about people who did not commit crimes) skeptics "know what we know."

Good question, tho, I have no idea why i waste my time; buncha true believers around here.
 
Iamafalser said:
Clever wording there. A prosecutor can decide there is not sufficient evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore not prosecute. In such a situation the prosecutor has decided there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" without any input from a judge or jury.
Click to expand...
I've no doubt you have an example in mind. :cool:
 
The Big Dog said:
Quoting Rosenstein's words is now pedantry, and "skeptics" are now declaring that no matter what the Mueller report says, (and based on what Rosenstein said, it ain't gonna mention anything about people who did not commit crimes) skeptics "know what we know."

Good question, tho, I have no idea why i waste my time; buncha true believers around here.
Click to expand...

You may not understand what Rosenstein was getting at:

Rosenstein: "...if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens."...

I highlighted "our case" because Rosenstein was referring to situations in which they have a case. If they have a case, that means they believe their case is correct, otherwise they would not have pursued it in the first place. Rosenstein was simply referring to instances in which they do not believe they can meet the courtroom standard of proof, which is very high. Not that they do not believe their case is true.

Rosenstein could believe his case is true. He could have evidence that supports his case to a 90% certainty. And yet that case would not meet the courtroom standard of proof, and so Rosenstein would not bring it.

But that would not mean Rosenstein does not know what he knows.

And that does not mean the voters will not know what they know in 2020.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
It is evidence of improper contacts that were then lied about that were then covered up that investigations into have faced extraordinary attempts to interfere with and intimidate.

You know, the kind of thing you expect to happen when a casual, but honest, mistake happens, right?

This evidence is located in courtrooms of various federal and state jurisdictions and attested to by many of the people involved who are now serving time for their crimes or in the process of receiving judgment to that effect.

Are we really going to do the "no really, I just woke up from a coma and have no clue what's going on around here" routine?
Click to expand...

That's allegations, not evidence. Unless you can point me somewhere that actually lists these improper contacts.
Process crimes are not evidence of collusion. Where is the evidence of that?

Also, just curious. What are the attempts to intimidate and interfere?
 
I think that denial of reality is going to be the only route left for the Trumpsters very soon....
 
Last edited:
The problem is "reality denial" is a valid option. We've let it get to that point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom