(04-20-2019 12:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Have you read the relevant quote from Appendix D of the report?

Quote:During the course of the investigation, the Office periodically identified evidence of potential criminal activity that was outside the scope of the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction established by the Acting Attorney General. After consultation with the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office referred that evidence to appropriate law enforcement authorities, principally other components of the Department of Justice and the FBI. Those Referrals, listed alphabetically by subject, are listed below.”

What is your understanding of substantive evidence and how does that quote not meet that definition?

To be substantive evidence, it has to be substantive evidence of something, it has to tend to prove or disprove something. What does that tend to prove or disprove?

Are there any indicia of obstruction there? Collusion/conspiracy? Obviously not the latter, because Mueller said there was no evidence of such.

Are those comments fuel for supposition? Yes. Do they prove or disprove anything? No.

I think a lot of this discussion indicates some misunderstanding of how a crime is defined and proved. Any crime has specific elements which must all be proved to establish a crime. If a crime is defined to include A, B, and C as requisite elements, then those are exactly the elements that must be proved. And nailing A, or even overkilling A and B, does not get you C. And without C you have nothing. What I see here is a lot of overkill of A, possible proof of B, and nothing on C. That doesn't get you there.