It was not blacked out of a court document.
Is that on the russian investigation OR does it relate to why he’s been holed up in an embasy since before the russian investigation started?
Link to it being a sealed indictment issued by mueller and in relation to his investigation pleae and thank you.
I’m not doing your work for you.
They redacted it by mistake snow…too bad barr was wrong…sucks for you guys
Was the sealed indictment against him issued by Mueller?
I’m still asking for proof, or if it was previous to that or issued by another prosecuting attorney?
The letter said mueller didn’t issue any sealed indictments. So I’m asking you to prove it was mueller that issued it.
I believe this is the reference.
Assange’s name appeared at least twice in papers filed in the Eastern District Court of Virginia, both times appearing to say that Assange has already been made the subject of his own case.
Prosecutors in Virginia say the court document was an error.
The filing alludes to the need to keep paperwork in the case under seal because “due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.”
So an unrealeated case to Mueller.
So Barr’s letter is correct that there are no sealed indictments from Barr.
We don’t know for certain because it is sealed and this was a mistake. But my suspicion is that it is one of the cases referenced that Mueller sent to other DA’s offices.
It matters. The Supreme Court is not the final decider of the Constitution because of Marbury or any wording in the Constitution or precedence. It is the decider of the Constitution because it is generally accepted as legitimately so by the President, Congress, media and ultimately the people of the US. What people think about the judiciary matters a lot.
well no, what barr meant was there are no sealed indictments for Trump, but there are other sealed indictments that we know of. Barr is trying to lawyer his way out of this for trump. He is quoting things out of context. The full report wont be as good as people think it will be for trump.
Your boy obstructed justice on some items we know about and some items we dont know about. Barr shut it down, but make no mistake, Trump committed crimes.
You and “law lovers” defend a criminal in the white house. All your moral high grounds have been destroyed with voting for trump. I ■■■■■■■ LOVE it!
Apparently not. Mueller didn’t charge him, turned the results over to Barr. Barr consulted with other before make the decision that no charges were warranted. Since you KNOW he committed crimes, I suggest you turn in an application to the FBI/CIA/NSA since you have uncovered something they failed to uncover.
The fact that Mueller did not indict does not mean that no charges were warranted. It is likely that even had there been overwhelming evidence that Trump sought to obstruct justice, Mueller would still have left the decision up to Barr, in light of the sticky Constitutional question of whether a sitting President can be indicted.
As for the “consultations” that Barr took with other officials, it is not known what those other officials suggested - only what Barr decided to do it the end.
That’s a good way to rationalize it so as to keep the impeachment fires burning.
No different that all of the rationalizing going on in this thread about how Trump has been completely exonerated.
All prior Special Counsel and Special Prosecutor appointments before Mueller that found evidence of Obstruction turned their findings over to the House for determination. Barr took that option away by his decision. Maybe it was right. Maybe not. But it ensures the details of the Mueller report need to be made public for us to now judge our employee in the White House.
If someone is doing that then deal with it directly. Responding with more rationalization gets us nowhere except into yet another political spit-ball match.
You can see the post I responded to, for an example of the rationalization I refer to.
What is this message board for, if not “political spit-ball matches”? Where do you expect to “get” to?
If Mueller had found sufficient grounds to indict Trump he would have.
This is a rationalization on your part.
Equally likely he saw a never ending battle and constitutional crisis and opted as a patriot to spare us the heartache. There’s no way to know anything until we see some of the report.
What part of precedent escaped you here? Mueller clearly felt he was not in a position to make a decision, as all past SP and SC also agreed. And presented their findings to the House for a conclusion on such matters. And Barr interjected and stopped that from occurring. Maybe correctly. Maybe not. But broke precedent nonetheless.
That assumes facts not in evidence.
