Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (115543)	3/25/2019 7:04:09 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360259

There was evidence in her case of gross negligence, but chose not roprosecute it. Entirely different. I am not at all surprised by your selective reading of Barr's statement. You have never recognized the legitimate space between to absolve and to not prosecute. Just as you have never recognized the legitimate space between the thresholds of criminal and acceptable, as we discusses yesterday. This is commonly seen when someone is tried but not convicted and the jury decision is said to have been found "innocent" rather than "not guilty." Either sloppy thinking or willful disregard. The correct way to have handled it would have been a flat statement, full stop: “We found no evidence of obstruction. Had we found any, we would have investigated.” Huh? Evidence is the product of investigation, not the precursor. Your "correct" statement makes no sense.