Any predictions for the Saturday rally to support the Jan 6 rioters?

[Bob1]

LOL. reality is subjective, Its about what you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Tell us Sherlock Holmes how police investigations work

I already did. Too bad you weren't paying attention.

No, reality isn't subjective. You just wish it was because it doesn't reflect your erroneous conservative talking points.

 

[Reformedguy]

I already did. Too bad you weren't paying attention.

No, reality isn't subjective. You just wish it was because it doesn't reflect your erroneous conservative talking points.

Nope. You did not. Walk me through a proper police investigation

Morality is subjective but reality is not? LOL

 

[Bob1]

Nope. You did not. Walk me through a proper police investigation

Morality is subjective but reality is not? LOL

Yes, I did. I corrected your erroneous idea that if an INVESTIGATION fails to produce enough evidence to result in charges the subject of the investigation is absolved of all suspicion. Your erroneous idea is not how police investigations actually work. An investigation MIGHT completely remove a subject from suspicion, but it isn't guaranteed. Cases are sometimes reopened if new evidence comes to light, for example.

No, reality is not subjective. Gravity is part of reality. Even if you subjectively think it won't, gravity will still effect you if you step off the roof of your house. Your claim that reality is subjective is just plain silly. It demonstrates you don't have a rational argument to make.

 

[Reformedguy]

Yes, I did. I corrected your erroneous idea that if an INVESTIGATION fails to produce enough evidence to result in charges the subject of the investigation is absolved of all suspicion. Your erroneous idea is not how police investigations actually work. An investigation MIGHT completely remove a subject from suspicion, but it isn't guaranteed. Cases are sometimes reopened if new evidence comes to light, for example.

No, reality is not subjective. Gravity is part of reality. Even if you subjectively think it won't, gravity will still effect you if you step off the roof of your house. Your claim that reality is subjective is just plain silly. It demonstrates you don't have a rational argument to make.

And I said you can suspect all you like. Suspicion is not guilt.

I waiting for you to explain how police investigations work. Will it be much longer?

If morality is subjective then reality is as well.

 

[Whateverman]

Morality is subjective but reality is not?

Yup

LOL

Intellectual cowardice noted.

 

[Bob1]

And I said you can suspect all you like. Suspicion is not guilt.

I waiting for you to explain how police investigations work. Will it be much longer?

If morality is subjective then reality is as well.

I never said suspicion was guilt. Try reading for comprehension in the future. What I said was that just because an investigation fails to produce enough evidence for filing charges, it doesn't necessarily clear the subject of suspicion... it only means enough evidence for charges wasn't found.

 

[Reformedguy]

Yup


Intellectual cowardice noted.

Yup? Okay why?

 

[Reformedguy]

I never said suspicion was guilt. Try reading for comprehension in the future. What I said was that just because an investigation fails to produce enough evidence for filing charges, it doesn't necessarily clear the subject of suspicion... it only means enough evidence for charges wasn't found.

Nobody cares what you or anyone else suspects genius. Suspicion is not a standard used to declare guilt or innocence.

When do I get my first lesson on a proper police investigation?

 

[Bob1]

Nobody cares what you or anyone else suspects genius. Suspicion is not a standard used to declare guilt or innocence.

When do I get my first lesson on a proper police investigation?

And you are still avoiding the point. The investigation was INCONCLUSIVE
There was not enough evidence found to bring charges, but at the same time it didn't state that the orange moron was absolutely innocent either. THAT IS THE POINT YOU KEEP TRYING TO AVOID.

You've been getting the lesson all along, you just aren't paying attention.

 

[Reformedguy]

And you are still avoiding the point. The investigation was INCONCLUSIVE
There was not enough evidence found to bring charges, but at the same time it didn't state that the orange moron was absolutely innocent either. THAT IS THE POINT YOU KEEP TRYING TO AVOID.

You've been getting the lesson all along, you just aren't paying attention.

I have? From who?

Again, they don't pronounce innocence or guilt. So, innocent till proven guilty. Maybe you, the Sherlock Holmes of our time, ought to take up the case. Tell us where you would start. Pretend your doing a police investigation. Use your alleged expertise.

 

[Bob1]

I have? From who?

Again, they don't pronounce innocence or guilt. So, innocent till proven guilty. Maybe you, the Sherlock Holmes of our time, ought to take up the case. Tell us where you would start. Pretend your doing a police investigation. Use your alleged expertise.

And you're still dodging the point. He wasn't cleared by the investigation, rather the investigation simply didn't turn up enough evidence for filing charges.

 

[Reformedguy]

And you're still dodging the point. He wasn't cleared by the investigation, rather the investigation simply didn't turn up enough evidence for filing charges.

Then he is innocent until proven guilty.

So tell is where you would start. I am shocked you were not involved in the investigation.

 

[Whateverman]

the investigation simply didn't turn up enough evidence for filing charges.

It actually did.

Mueller came out and said he didn't think it would have been fair to accuse the so-called president of criminal activity (aka. could not indict him), because the so-called president would not have had the opportunity to defend himself (in the report). This "ruling" by him goes completely against precedent as well as common sense - and most people have forgotten this tiny, crucial detail.

If it weren't for this decision by Mueller, the report itself simply said it couldn't exonerate the so-called president from charges of obstruction of justice. It listed 11 examples of behavior which amounted to that crime. In the context of the above decision, this "can't exonerate" claim is as good as an indictment.

The report contained indictable evidence. Congress simply didn't have to will to vote accordingly.

If ********* had been anyone other than the white house occupant, he would have been indicted.

 

[Reformedguy]

It actually did.

Mueller came out and said he didn't think it would have been fair to accuse the so-called president of criminal activity (aka. could not indict him), because the so-called president would not have had the opportunity to defend himself (in the report). This "ruling" by him goes completely against precedent as well as common sense - and most people have forgotten this tiny, crucial detail.

If it weren't for this decision by Mueller, the report itself simply said it couldn't exonerate the so-called president from charges of obstruction of justice. It listed 11 examples of behavior which amounted to that crime. In the context of the above decision, this "can't exonerate" claim is as good as an indictment.

The report contained indictable evidence. Congress simply didn't have to will to vote accordingly.

If ********* had been anyone other than the white house occupant, he would have been indicted.

It's not his job to exonerate anyone. So it basically good for nothing. He merely presents the evidence he had gathered which turned out to be basically nothing.

You have no way of knowing that Nostradamus

 

[Bob1]

Then he is innocent until proven guilty.

So tell is where you would start. I am shocked you were not involved in the investigation.

My point is he wasn't cleared by the investigation.

 

[Bob1]

It actually did.

Mueller came out and said he didn't think it would have been fair to accuse the so-called president of criminal activity (aka. could not indict him), because the so-called president would not have had the opportunity to defend himself (in the report). This "ruling" by him goes completely against precedent as well as common sense - and most people have forgotten this tiny, crucial detail.

If it weren't for this decision by Mueller, the report itself simply said it couldn't exonerate the so-called president from charges of obstruction of justice. It listed 11 examples of behavior which amounted to that crime. In the context of the above decision, this "can't exonerate" claim is as good as an indictment.

The report contained indictable evidence. Congress simply didn't have to will to vote accordingly.

If ********* had been anyone other than the white house occupant, he would have been indicted.

Excellent point.

 

[Bob1]

It's not his job to exonerate anyone. So it basically good for nothing. He merely presents the evidence he had gathered which turned out to be basically nothing.

You have no way of knowing that Nostradamus

Actually, it didn't turn out to be "nothing". Try reading for comprehension.

 

[Reformedguy]

Actually, it didn't turn out to be "nothing". Try reading for comprehension.

It was nothing but wishful thinking by the nutcase left

 

[Reformedguy]

My point is he wasn't cleared by the investigation.

The investigation is not meant to clear or pronounce guilt, Your ignorance is astounding

 

[vibise]

It actually did.

Mueller came out and said he didn't think it would have been fair to accuse the so-called president of criminal activity (aka. could not indict him), because the so-called president would not have had the opportunity to defend himself (in the report). This "ruling" by him goes completely against precedent as well as common sense - and most people have forgotten this tiny, crucial detail.

If it weren't for this decision by Mueller, the report itself simply said it couldn't exonerate the so-called president from charges of obstruction of justice. It listed 11 examples of behavior which amounted to that crime. In the context of the above decision, this "can't exonerate" claim is as good as an indictment.

The report contained indictable evidence. Congress simply didn't have to will to vote accordingly.

If ********* had been anyone other than the white house occupant, he would have been indicted.

This is correct. Mueller outlined 11 instances of obstruction of justice at least 3 of which met all 3 criteria for obstruction. Mueller also concluded that it would be inappropriate for the DOJ to file charges against a POTUS, because this should fall to Congress, which, under GOP leadership, declined to pursue.