-


I appreciate the OP to you hitting on the theme, and I do think Trump has been cleared on the collusion front (no evidence of conspiracy to collude). I don't think people here are saying that they are 100% sure Trump is clear on obstruction, just that Barr and Rosenstein (and team) have given their take that Trump is clear on that front. Trump is the one who used his bad words again and said "complete exoneration". Are there those here you guys are taking issue with, or is it just a shot at Trump's over-reach in his comments?

ps. I'd posit that Trump's oral-overreach and frequent poor choice of words is part of what made him look guilty as hell to begin with.

(no evidence of conspiracy to collude).

And now apparently Mr. Smollett and his team are "weighing options" on suing CPD: https://www.usatoday.com/...-emanuel/3285860002/

No way they sue, this is just more grandstanding. They know they can't let this get back into the courts.

This is the whole joke though.

Technically speaking one man's interpretation is "...the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

That's pretty carefully worded. It doesn't say no evidence. It says the evidence doesn't "establish." I assume that's a reference to "establish beyond a reasonable doubt." So it could be mean anything between "no evidence" and "there's evidence, but we don't have the President dead to rights." And when you're talking about a President I think you probably take "dead to rights" and raise the bar a few inches higher than that. That's a pretty broad range.

But the joke is that it's "total vindication."

I love the knowing nods about how a 2nd-rate celebrity who probably doesn't have 7-figure net worth is an instrument of incredibly powerful dark corrupting forces - OMG pictures with Michelle! But the 1st-rate celebrity with 10-figure net worth has been completely exonerated and we should feel ashamed for out thoughts that it could be otherwise.

Can you imagine how bad it would look if Smollett hired the person that declared there would be no charges, after that person sent a lengthy letter to Smollett explaining why he should not be charged? That would look very corrupt.

-
Looks like you did not read what was written:


Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President - most of which have been the subject of public reporting - that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction .. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of­justice offense.
-

Here's a piece that describes some of the hurdles in this type of case:

https://www.msn.com/...r-BBVcHkX?li=BBnb7Kw

Strange that people don't bring up the point that people could have been falsely charged for this. Imagine if a couple white guys were arrested because they were in the wrong place and the wrong time.

this entire thread is enjoyingly predictable, sometimes it's nice to be reminded that most people are exactly who we think they are and never change.

this entire thread is enjoyingly predictable, sometimes it's nice to be reminded that most people are exactly who we think they are and never change.

I really want the Chicago Corporation to sue the fucker civilly.

Called it

I have to say that I don't understand what went on with this. Initially, there were reports Smollett could get 43 years. I thought that seemed ridiculously excessive as a number to anchor our thoughts about this hoax. Now, he's not even going to be prosecuted, despite the aspersions cast on Chicago PD and Smollett accepting zero accountability for his actions? That's really at odds with how the system typically works.

However, I'm reluctant to cite corruption unless I've got some good probable cause to suspect a particular type of corruption. Here we don't have it. We don't know if someone received some payola, or if someone is sympathetic to Smollett's cause, or if the DA just didn't want the publicity of this particular case. The list could go on.

Obviously I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, but he was not exonerated, or proved innocent, the Chicago D A just decided not to prosecute because she felt there wasn’t enough evidence to get a conviction. Did he pay the money to Chicago yet? I thought it was due yesterday? The new mayor says there’s going to be an investigation....think she’ll get a call from Barry??