Passing Through wrote: Shammy Davis wrote: Passing Through wrote: Shammy Davis wrote: [QUOTE=Passing Through] So Shammy, you finally stick your head up from your hole. . .[QUOTE] Petty, petty, petty. It appears I have been the one finishing on top here. From my perspective you are the one in hole. Can you please explain to the folks at home how the DOJ practice on indicting Presidents works please?  Could Messrs Mueller, Rosenstein or Barr have even found him or his family guilty under those practices? No. Only a court or jury can determine guilt or innocence. A sitting President cannot be criminally indicted, but the fact that Mueller did not indict anyone in the Trump family says a great deal. As I recall you were prematurely applauding that Jr and Jared were going down hundreds of pages ago for collusion. Now the investigation turns, as Lindsay Graham suggests, to the real crooks like Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strozk, Page, Ohr, etc, not to forget Hillary and her trolls. Buckle up. All your heroes are going down.

Second Chance wrote: Scamanda you entirely miss the point about Me Culpa in this instance. Subject to correction I don't believe anyone on here categorically maintained that Trump colluded with Russia, if only because no-one here knew one way or the other.  Ultimately therefore, no-one here was wrong. On the other hand the Trump supporters in the USA and to some extent here came out in number saying that he didn't.They were proved right, although they had no real idea either.   In summary: only those who claimed he colluded, or those who claimed he didn't, could ultimately admit to being right or wrong

stayer wrote: I can't blame them, but I'm not sure I agree with the pro-Trump/ anti-Dem crowd now wanting to play the same game back at them. It will probably just add to the disillusionment with political power games, divisiveness, nastiness etc. Trump should at least attempt to distance himself a bit from it and go with the same sort of message he gave at his State of the Union speech.

Passing Through wrote: Avenatti was representing his client Stormy Daniels and did it very well, winning comprehensively. The fact that he is a crook is a separate issue, and should be in prison if found guilty.  Right from wrong Shrunky, not right from left.

You’re talking to the wrong bloke about left and right PT.
Depending on the topic my views fluctuate wildly and aren’t governed by such ideology.

I reckon I’m one of only a few on this forum that can’t be pigeon holed

Passing Through wrote: Dr E wrote: Passing Through wrote: Shammy Davis wrote: Passing Through wrote: Shammy Davis wrote: [QUOTE=Passing Through] So Shammy, you finally stick your head up from your hole. . .[QUOTE] Petty, petty, petty. It appears I have been the one finishing on top here. From my perspective you are the one in hole. Can you please explain to the folks at home how the DOJ practice on indicting Presidents works please?  Could Messrs Mueller, Rosenstein or Barr have even found him or his family guilty under those practices? No. Only a court or jury can determine guilt or innocence. A sitting President cannot be criminally indicted, but the fact that Mueller did not indict anyone in the Trump family says a great deal. As I recall you were prematurely applauding that Jr and Jared were going down hundreds of pages ago for collusion. Now the investigation turns, as Lindsay Graham suggests, to the real crooks like Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strozk, Page, Ohr, etc, not to forget Hillary and her trolls. Buckle up. All your heroes are going down. So, there was no crime to obstruct, right? <font size="5" color="#009933">100% EXONERATED!  Not enough to prosecute is exonerated, right? Jussie is innocent and deserves a full unconditional apology, and probably massive compensation.

Not exactly how it went down. Jussie forfeited his $10,000 bond and immediately following the nolo prosequi hearing both the prosecutor and police chief announced publically they still believed Jussie would have been convicted. Chicago prosecutors saved the city hundreds of thousands in prosecution expenses and came out $10k ahead. Let’s wait and see how Jussie survives an on-going federal mail fraud investigation now. Jussie isn't going to sue for damages because the charges weren't dismissed, just not pursued. There is a big difference.

Passing Through wrote: No Shammy.... TOTAL EXONERATION.

No! Another moronic moment for you? Exonerated. No!
That is what his lawyers are saying.

The prosecutor withdrew the charges unilaterally. It doesn't mean that Jussie can't be recharged.


Nolle prosequi is a Latin phrase meaning “will no longer prosecute” or a variation on the same. It amounts to a dismissal of charges by the prosecution. Some states, like New York, for example, don’t use the phrase. Rather, they simply use the term dismissal.

The prosecution invokes nolle prosequi or dismissal when it has decided to discontinue a prosecution or part of it. Lawyers and judges refer to the charges “nol prossed” or dismissed. The prosecution may nol pross all charges against the defendant or only some.

In some states, the prosecution must move to dismiss charges (often “in the interests of justice”), and the case doesn’t end until the court grants the motion. In others, the prosecution can unilaterally dismiss charges.

Reasons to Dismiss
A prosecutor might nol pross or dismiss charges for a variety of reasons, including:

reevaluation of evidence

emergence of new evidence

failure of witnesses to cooperate,
or
desire to give the defendant a second chance.

Effect of Dismissal
The normal effect of nolle prosequi is to leave matters as if charges had never been filed.

It’s not an acquittal,

which (through the principle of double jeopardy) prevents further proceedings against the defendant for the conduct in question. Rather, at least when it occurs before trial, nolle prosequi typically leaves the decision of whether to re-prosecute in the hands of the government. If the prosecution decides to bring charges again—for example, after it’s gathered more evidence—it must file a new charging document. (People v. Daniels, 187 Ill. 2d 301 (1999), Kenyon v. Com., 37 Va. App. 668 (2002).)

However, dismissals are sometimes "with prejudice." A dismissal with prejudice means the prosecution can’t ever re-file charges; a dismissal without it means the opposite.

ONE HOUR AGO! HAVING A BAD WEEK, ARE YOU? READ THIS AND WEEP.

""Cook County prosecutors have dropped all 16 counts against "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett for allegedly lying to law enforcement in January that he had been the victim of a hate crime, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The latest: In an interview with the New York Times' Julie Bosman, assistant state's attorney Joe Magats said that Smollett is not exonerated, and that the charges were dropped in exchange for Smollett's agreement to do community service.

"Here's the thing -- we work to prioritize violent crime and the drivers of violent crime. Public safety is our number one priority. I don't see Jussie Smollett as a threat to public safety. ... We stand behind the investigation, we stand behind the decision to charge him and we stand behind the charges in the case. The mere fact that it was disposed of in an alternative manner does not mean that there were any problems or infirmities in the case or the evidence."
Details: After dismissing the charges, a prosecutor said: "After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett's volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond ... we believe this outcome is a just disposition an appropriate resolution to this case." A judge granted a motion to seal the case and wipe Smollett's record clean.

Smollett addressed the press after his emergency hearing and thanked his friends, family and supporters for standing by him.""
Get some new reading material.

https://www.axios.com/charges-against-jussie-smollett-dropped-40aa6ce9-8b53-4dcc-b856-bb6c05653361.html

You’re wasting your time PT.

Shammy thinks stonewalling and hiding behind executive privilege until the statute of limitations kicks in,is evidence of no wrong doing....

There was no collusion but all these Trump aides and advisers are going to prison for lying about what they claim they didn't do.

I do find Shammys emoji work funny.....esp the "Listen. Listen. Listen to me" add on. I just imagine PT grinding his teeth while he reads it . Grrrrrrr

Shammy Davis wrote: Passing Through wrote: So Shammy, do you apply the same standard to Trump, of whom the Barr Report said was not exonerated of criminal obstruction because Mr Mueller chose to not determine?  Listen, listen, listen to me! Smollett was indicted by a grand jury. Trump has never been indicted. Two different things. You can't dismiss charges that were never brought to prosecute. Don't keep embarrassing yourself by masquerading as an idiot. Where are we now? 809 pages and you still can't do the math. Zero is zero, no matter what country yout reside in even if it is upside down land.

Passing Through wrote: Dr E wrote: Passing Through wrote: Shammy Davis wrote: Passing Through wrote: Shammy Davis wrote: [QUOTE=Passing Through] So Shammy, you finally stick your head up from your hole. . .[QUOTE] Petty, petty, petty. It appears I have been the one finishing on top here. From my perspective you are the one in hole. Can you please explain to the folks at home how the DOJ practice on indicting Presidents works please?  Could Messrs Mueller, Rosenstein or Barr have even found him or his family guilty under those practices? No. Only a court or jury can determine guilt or innocence. A sitting President cannot be criminally indicted, but the fact that Mueller did not indict anyone in the Trump family says a great deal. As I recall you were prematurely applauding that Jr and Jared were going down hundreds of pages ago for collusion. Now the investigation turns, as Lindsay Graham suggests, to the real crooks like Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strozk, Page, Ohr, etc, not to forget Hillary and her trolls. Buckle up. All your heroes are going down. So, there was no crime to obstruct, right? 100% EXONERATED!  Not enough to prosecute is exonerated, right? Jussie is innocent and deserves a full unconditional apology, and probably massive compensation. Jussie Smollett Exonerated! No Collusion! All charges dropped. By JOE PATRICE at 12:05 PM As Chicago police turned their sights on Jussie Smollett and mused that he probably staged the hate crime attack upon himself, Donald Trump used the Twitter machines to blast Smollett for making “racist and dangerous comments” about the risk of hate crimes in America, while Don Jr. retweeted every update that suggested Smollett was the real perpetrator of the crime against him. This morning, the Chicago prosecutors who earlier secured a 16-count indictment against Smollett decided to drop all those charges and fully expunge his record. His attorneys released this statement: “Today, all criminal charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped and his record has been wiped clean of the filing of this tragic complaint against him. Jussie was attacked by two people he was unable to identify on January 29th. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgement. Jussie and many others were hurt by these unfair and unwarranted actions. This entire situation is a reminder that there should never be an attempt to prove a case in the court of public opinion. That is wrong. It is a reminder that a victim, in this case Jussie, deserves dignity and respect. Dismissal of charges against the victim in this case was the only just result. Jussie is relieved to have this situation behind him and is very much looking forward to getting back to focusing on his family, friends and career.” One presumes that the Trumps will quickly and sincerely retract their comments and offer Smollett heartfelt support. After all, when a law enforcement official declines to go forward with a prosecution, that is the same as an exoneration. Certainly there will be some naysayers who will see the motion to seal the case that the judge granted as the makings of a cover-up, allowing someone to evade justice without allowing the public to scrutinize the investigative findings, but that’s just conspiracy theory talk! The summary we’ve received from the lawyers in this case assuring us that there’s no need to go forward are the only proof we need. I’m sure we can all agree on this. Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search. http://abovethelaw.com/2019/03/jussie-smollett-exonerated-no-collusion/

Passing Through wrote: There was no collusion but all these Trump aides and advisers are going to prison for lying about what they claim they didn't do. That would take a special type of stupid...unless.

I wonder how much time Hillary would have already spent in "porridge", if they had spent as much time effort and resources investigating her ...hmmm

Shammy Davis wrote: Passing Through wrote: Shammy Davis wrote: Passing Through wrote: So Shammy, do you apply the same standard to Trump, of whom the Barr Report said was not exonerated of criminal obstruction because Mr Mueller chose to not determine?  Listen, listen, listen to me! Smollett was indicted by a grand jury. Trump has never been indicted. Two different things. You can't dismiss charges that were never brought to prosecute. Don't keep embarrassing yourself by masquerading as an idiot. Where are we now? 809 pages and you still can't do the math. Zero is zero, no matter what country yout reside in even if it is upside down land. NO COLLUSION, TOTAL EXONERATION. Who exonerated him? Listen, listen, listen to me! When you have zero and you add zero to it your sum is zero. You should be familiar with zero by now. As far as your hero Mueller and his collusion investigation is concerned he came up with zero too. You and your hero have something in common. Guess you could say Mueller was the one who exonerated Trump, but does it matter.

If you have f-all to say, why say it?