"this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate"

[hadit]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

There is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.


Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.

Let’s see the report. No one trusts Barr’s word

No reason not to. Do you really think the partisans on Mueller's team would allow lies about their work to stand unchallenged?

Face reality, this report will not give you Trump in handcuffs. You're just going to have to deal with that.

 

[sealybobo]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

There is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.


Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.

Let’s see the report. No one trusts Barr’s word

I trust him 100%

What is your strategy involving evidence that involves open grand juries and other investigations. Should that info be released unredacted and just say the hell with other open investigations?

You trust him 100%. That’s all I wanted to hear.

The same people who don’t trust government now trust government 100%. Idiots

 

[sealybobo]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

There is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.


Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.

Let’s see the report. No one trusts Barr’s word

No reason not to. Do you really think the partisans on Mueller's team would allow lies about their work to stand unchallenged?

Face reality, this report will not give you Trump in handcuffs. You're just going to have to deal with that.

No because Barr buried it.

Maybe it wouldn’t put him in handcuffs but possibly the facts could cost him the 2020 election

 

[hadit]

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

There is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.


Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.

Let’s see the report. No one trusts Barr’s word

No reason not to. Do you really think the partisans on Mueller's team would allow lies about their work to stand unchallenged?

Face reality, this report will not give you Trump in handcuffs. You're just going to have to deal with that.

No because Barr buried it.

Maybe it wouldn’t put him in handcuffs but possibly the facts could cost him the 2020 election

So you're admitting it really is a political thing and justice isn't really all that important.

 

[NightFox]

IMHO It's not contradictory at all …

It means insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion of the commission of a crime and no (or insufficient) exculpatory evidence to justify exoneration.

That is one way to look at it. However, the MSM and many Dems made it clear that collusion was evident. After all the witnesses, 2.5 years of investigation, and millions spent, exoneration would appear a fair conclusion.

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

It is my understanding those were the words of Mueller, not Barr. Am I wrong?

Has Mueller publicly disavowed those words?

As far as I know, neither Barr nor Mueller ever publicly pronounced or authored a conclusion that Trump has been exonerated of anything nor have they implied such a conclusion.

Do you have a source that differs?

Mueller’s report specifically states the following:

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Uh-huh, it doesn't indicate the investigation exonerated anybody, in fact it says the opposite, but that's not from Mueller's report that's from Barr's summary quoting the Mueller Report (I have no reason to believe the quote isn't accurate...), Mueller's report hasn't been released to the public yet.

Also direct from Mueller:
“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Again, that's Barr's summary but it doesn't say that the President was exonerated, it says that the evidence uncovered by the investigation doesn't reasonably establish that the Trump Campaign "colluded" but it doesn't say conclusively that it didn't happen.

From legal perspective, exoneration would indicate that the only reasonable conclusion is that the target couldn't have/didn't committed whatever crime(s) that were being investigated, pretty rare for an investigation of with this broad a scope, since obtaining exculpatory evidence is pretty difficult in a situation like that. Insufficient evidence doesn't exonerate, it just says there's not enough evidence to reasonably establish guilt but doesn't say that the target isn't guilty, ultimately that would be up to a court.

From the average Joe's perspective it's reasonable to conclude Trump et. al. is "exonerated" by these findings, from a legal perspective it's not given the lack of exculpatory evidence.

 

[jc456]

Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia

That's not even what Barr said....although that is the impression he wants to convey in covering this up

no sealed indictments or indictments to act on=no crime. no crime=exoneration.

 

[jc456]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

Let's put Trump on the stand and see if he lies...about matters far more important

what is it you want him on the stand for?

 

[jc456]

That is one way to look at it. However, the MSM and many Dems made it clear that collusion was evident. After all the witnesses, 2.5 years of investigation, and millions spent, exoneration would appear a fair conclusion.

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

It is my understanding those were the words of Mueller, not Barr. Am I wrong?

Has Mueller publicly disavowed those words?

As far as I know, neither Barr nor Mueller ever publicly pronounced or authored a conclusion that Trump has been exonerated of anything nor have they implied such a conclusion.

Do you have a source that differs?

Mueller’s report specifically states the following:

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Uh-huh, it doesn't indicate the investigation exonerated anybody, in fact it says the opposite, but that's not from Mueller's report that's from Barr's summary quoting the Mueller Report (I have no reason to believe the quote isn't accurate...), Mueller's report hasn't been released to the public yet.

Also direct from Mueller:
“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Again, that's Barr's summary but it doesn't say that the President was exonerated, it says that the evidence uncovered by the investigation doesn't reasonably establish that the Trump Campaign "colluded" but it doesn't say conclusively that it didn't happen.

From legal perspective, exoneration would indicate that the only reasonable conclusion is that the target couldn't have/didn't committed whatever crime(s) that were being investigated, pretty rare for an investigation of with this broad a scope, since obtaining exculpatory evidence is pretty difficult in a situation like that. Insufficient evidence doesn't exonerate, it just says there's not enough evidence to reasonably establish guilt but doesn't say that the target isn't guilty, ultimately that would be up to a court.

From the average Joe's perspective it's reasonable to conclude Trump et. al. is "exonerated" by these findings, from a legal perspective it's not given the lack of exculpatory evidence.

what it said was there are no sealed indictments nor indictments to act on. that means no crime was found. End of story. you or I don't need to know anymore than that. Without indictments, what do you think could possibly be in there that actually means anything? I'm curious what it is you think could exist that you keep making this post.

 

[gipper]

That is one way to look at it. However, the MSM and many Dems made it clear that collusion was evident. After all the witnesses, 2.5 years of investigation, and millions spent, exoneration would appear a fair conclusion.

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

It is my understanding those were the words of Mueller, not Barr. Am I wrong?

Has Mueller publicly disavowed those words?

As far as I know, neither Barr nor Mueller ever publicly pronounced or authored a conclusion that Trump has been exonerated of anything nor have they implied such a conclusion.

Do you have a source that differs?

Mueller’s report specifically states the following:

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Uh-huh, it doesn't indicate the investigation exonerated anybody, in fact it says the opposite, but that's not from Mueller's report that's from Barr's summary quoting the Mueller Report (I have no reason to believe the quote isn't accurate...), Mueller's report hasn't been released to the public yet.

Also direct from Mueller:
“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Again, that's Barr's summary but it doesn't say that the President was exonerated, it says that the evidence uncovered by the investigation doesn't reasonably establish that the Trump Campaign "colluded" but it doesn't say conclusively that it didn't happen.

From legal perspective, exoneration would indicate that the only reasonable conclusion is that the target couldn't have/didn't committed whatever crime(s) that were being investigated, pretty rare for an investigation of with this broad a scope, since obtaining exculpatory evidence is pretty difficult in a situation like that. Insufficient evidence doesn't exonerate, it just says there's not enough evidence to reasonably establish guilt but doesn't say that the target isn't guilty, ultimately that would be up to a court.

From the average Joe's perspective it's reasonable to conclude Trump et. al. is "exonerated" by these findings, from a legal perspective it's not given the lack of exculpatory evidence.

Yes it is Barr's summary. In the Barr summary he cited verbatim the words Mueller used in his report...those words are shown below again.

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

 

[jc456]

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

It is my understanding those were the words of Mueller, not Barr. Am I wrong?

Has Mueller publicly disavowed those words?

As far as I know, neither Barr nor Mueller ever publicly pronounced or authored a conclusion that Trump has been exonerated of anything nor have they implied such a conclusion.

Do you have a source that differs?

Mueller’s report specifically states the following:

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Uh-huh, it doesn't indicate the investigation exonerated anybody, in fact it says the opposite, but that's not from Mueller's report that's from Barr's summary quoting the Mueller Report (I have no reason to believe the quote isn't accurate...), Mueller's report hasn't been released to the public yet.

Also direct from Mueller:
“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Again, that's Barr's summary but it doesn't say that the President was exonerated, it says that the evidence uncovered by the investigation doesn't reasonably establish that the Trump Campaign "colluded" but it doesn't say conclusively that it didn't happen.

From legal perspective, exoneration would indicate that the only reasonable conclusion is that the target couldn't have/didn't committed whatever crime(s) that were being investigated, pretty rare for an investigation of with this broad a scope, since obtaining exculpatory evidence is pretty difficult in a situation like that. Insufficient evidence doesn't exonerate, it just says there's not enough evidence to reasonably establish guilt but doesn't say that the target isn't guilty, ultimately that would be up to a court.

From the average Joe's perspective it's reasonable to conclude Trump et. al. is "exonerated" by these findings, from a legal perspective it's not given the lack of exculpatory evidence.

Yes it is Barr's summary. In the Barr summary he cited verbatim the words Mueller used in his report...those words are shown below again.

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

too funny eh gip? no sealed indictments and no indictment to act on. No crime, yet, nope doesn' mean there wasn't a crime. Well yeah, it does. Someone said, hey trump and his campaign did this!! They looked and they looked and they looked and they looked, and nope, nothing there. So, for the investigation into whether trump or his campaign colluded with russia, the report says nope. I'm sorry, but that was the #1 intent of the order given. If nothing was found, excuse me, then that exonerates trump and his campaign from the charge in the order. Since when did the public become so dumbed down that no finding means finding? I'm sorry. thanks for your continued efforts my friend.

 

[NightFox]

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

It is my understanding those were the words of Mueller, not Barr. Am I wrong?

Has Mueller publicly disavowed those words?

As far as I know, neither Barr nor Mueller ever publicly pronounced or authored a conclusion that Trump has been exonerated of anything nor have they implied such a conclusion.

Do you have a source that differs?

Mueller’s report specifically states the following:

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Uh-huh, it doesn't indicate the investigation exonerated anybody, in fact it says the opposite, but that's not from Mueller's report that's from Barr's summary quoting the Mueller Report (I have no reason to believe the quote isn't accurate...), Mueller's report hasn't been released to the public yet.

Also direct from Mueller:
“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Again, that's Barr's summary but it doesn't say that the President was exonerated, it says that the evidence uncovered by the investigation doesn't reasonably establish that the Trump Campaign "colluded" but it doesn't say conclusively that it didn't happen.

From legal perspective, exoneration would indicate that the only reasonable conclusion is that the target couldn't have/didn't committed whatever crime(s) that were being investigated, pretty rare for an investigation of with this broad a scope, since obtaining exculpatory evidence is pretty difficult in a situation like that. Insufficient evidence doesn't exonerate, it just says there's not enough evidence to reasonably establish guilt but doesn't say that the target isn't guilty, ultimately that would be up to a court.

From the average Joe's perspective it's reasonable to conclude Trump et. al. is "exonerated" by these findings, from a legal perspective it's not given the lack of exculpatory evidence.

Yes it is Barr's summary. In the Barr summary he cited verbatim the words Mueller used in his report...those words are shown below again.

Yep, I assume that's what Barr did, however from an accuracy standpoint, the quotes have no context, so .. take it for what it's worth.

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Again... no EXONERATION from either Barr or Mueller.

Let me try to explain it a different way.

If you were accused of shooting a man in New York city on a particular day at a particular time ...

And the subsequent investigation turns up credible witnesses that place you in Hawaii on that particular day at that particular time, along with plane tickets, receipts, hotel video.etc.. that's exculpatory evidence upon which the investigation is likely to EXONERATE you, which is essentially the investigation declaring a verdict of not guilty because sufficient credible exculpatory evidence exists that you could not possibly be guilty of the crime given that you were 1000's of miles away at the time.

Investigations aren't designed to determine guilt or innocence, they're designed to determine whether or not sufficient evidence exists to warrant prosecution, the courts determine guilt or innocence, however in cases like the example above it's appropriate to declare the target exonerated.

That doesn't apply to the Mueller Investigation because the investigation obviously doesn't have sufficient exculpatory evidence to determine the target couldn't have committed the crime (or is otherwise blameless), so it can only say that the evidence uncovered is insufficient to (reasonably) pursue prosecution (in other words "I think I'd lose in court if I tried to prosecute this").

Any investigation can never say for certain that it's uncovered ALL the evidence that exists, nor can it say for certain that the evidence that it has uncovered is 100% accurate.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[jc456]

It is my understanding those were the words of Mueller, not Barr. Am I wrong?

Has Mueller publicly disavowed those words?

As far as I know, neither Barr nor Mueller ever publicly pronounced or authored a conclusion that Trump has been exonerated of anything nor have they implied such a conclusion.

Do you have a source that differs?

Mueller’s report specifically states the following:

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Uh-huh, it doesn't indicate the investigation exonerated anybody, in fact it says the opposite, but that's not from Mueller's report that's from Barr's summary quoting the Mueller Report (I have no reason to believe the quote isn't accurate...), Mueller's report hasn't been released to the public yet.

Also direct from Mueller:
“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Again, that's Barr's summary but it doesn't say that the President was exonerated, it says that the evidence uncovered by the investigation doesn't reasonably establish that the Trump Campaign "colluded" but it doesn't say conclusively that it didn't happen.

From legal perspective, exoneration would indicate that the only reasonable conclusion is that the target couldn't have/didn't committed whatever crime(s) that were being investigated, pretty rare for an investigation of with this broad a scope, since obtaining exculpatory evidence is pretty difficult in a situation like that. Insufficient evidence doesn't exonerate, it just says there's not enough evidence to reasonably establish guilt but doesn't say that the target isn't guilty, ultimately that would be up to a court.

From the average Joe's perspective it's reasonable to conclude Trump et. al. is "exonerated" by these findings, from a legal perspective it's not given the lack of exculpatory evidence.

Yes it is Barr's summary. In the Barr summary he cited verbatim the words Mueller used in his report...those words are shown below again.

Yep, I assume that's what Barr did, however from an accuracy standpoint, the quotes have no context, so .. take it for what it's worth.

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Again... no EXONERATION from either Barr or Mueller.

Let me try to explain it a different way.

If you were accused of shooting a man in New York city on a particular day at a particular time ...

And the subsequent investigation turns up credible witnesses that place you in Hawaii on that particular day at that particular time, along with plane tickets, receipts, hotel video.etc.. that's exculpatory evidence upon which the investigation is likely to EXONERATE you, which is essentially the investigation declaring a verdict of not guilty because sufficient credible exculpatory evidence exists that you could not possibly be guilty of the crime given that you were 1000's of miles away at the time.

Investigations aren't designed to determine guilt or innocence, they're designed to determine whether or not sufficient evidence exists to warrant prosecution, the courts determine guilt or innocence, however in cases like the example above it's appropriate to declare the target exonerated.

That doesn't apply to the Mueller Investigation because the investigation obviously doesn't have sufficient exculpatory evidence to determine the target couldn't have committed the crime (or is otherwise blameless), so it can only say that the evidence uncovered is insufficient to (reasonably) pursue prosecution (in other words "I think I'd lose in court if I tried to prosecute this").

Any investigation can never say for certain that it's uncovered ALL the evidence that exists, nor can it say for certain that the evidence that it has uncovered is 100% accurate.

Hope that makes sense.

completely agree with your explanation of exonerate here.

The issue with the Russiagate, however, is there is no shooting. Zip. Why would there need to be an investigation into a shooting that didn't happen. So, if someone says that a shooting did indeed happen and that joe blow did it, and you can't find evidence of a shooting, that still exonerates joe blow. Not sure how you can see that any other way. And for that, I'm looking for an explanation. your analogy doesn't match. There was a crime in your analogy and not with the trump witch hunt.

 

[hadit]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

Let's put Trump on the stand and see if he lies...about matters far more important

what is it you want him on the stand for?

That doesn't matter. They don't seem to understand that you can't just put someone under oath like that for no reason at all.