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

[dudmuck]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

amazing aint it?

 

[Edgetho]

No. Is your last name Goebbels?

You probably meant 'Himmler' but you're also probably too stupid to know the difference

 

[hunarcy]

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

If you support the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy, you are correct.

Trump isn't charged, so nope that doesn't get to play in your statement.

He was investigated by a PROSECUTOR. No crime was found to prosecute. Innocent until proven guilty implies no prosecution equals exoneration. Now, if you support the "an investigation equals guilt", then that changes things.

I don't know why? there was no crime. you just said so. no charge, no crime no need for justice. again, you are just posting nonsense. one doesn't need due process until one is charged. fk i wish you fking stupid asses would learn something.

And I wish you understood that we ALL need due process and kept it in mind.
The FACTS show that there was no crime. That the lack of prosecution exonerates the President. The idea that anything else is coming concerning collusion and/or obstruction of justice is just a fantasy. I wish you had the reading comprehension to understand that everything I've posted supports that.

 

[hunarcy]

No. Is your last name Goebbels?

You probably meant 'Himmler' but you're also probably too stupid to know the difference

No, moron, Goebbels was the propaganda chief and that's why you seem dedicated to doing

 

[hunarcy]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

amazing aint it?

What is amazing is that you can post such stupidity without embarrassment. Let me know when Mueller comes out and says, "That's not what it says."

 

[beautress]

Mueller stated "there was no crime" This means that there can be no collusion as you must have a crime for collusion to even be considered. Mueller's statement was circular and improper. Mueller exonerated Trump with this statement, even if he didn't want too.

The Witch is dead... bury her!

Are you sayin' that Hillary died?
Oops, Freudian slip. Just like the Blue Dress. Just like Mueller's language use.

 

[gipper]

Agreed.

Mueller said...“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Well this statement does appear contradictory.

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.”

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.”

 

[jc456]

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

If you support the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy, you are correct.

Trump isn't charged, so nope that doesn't get to play in your statement.

He was investigated by a PROSECUTOR. No crime was found to prosecute. Innocent until proven guilty implies no prosecution equals exoneration. Now, if you support the "an investigation equals guilt", then that changes things.

I don't know why? there was no crime. you just said so. no charge, no crime no need for justice. again, you are just posting nonsense. one doesn't need due process until one is charged. fk i wish you fking stupid asses would learn something.

And I wish you understood that we ALL need due process and kept it in mind.
The FACTS show that there was no crime. That the lack of prosecution exonerates the President. The idea that anything else is coming concerning collusion and/or obstruction of justice is just a fantasy. I wish you had the reading comprehension to understand that everything I've posted supports that.

I agree with all of that. but you stated innocent until proven guilty. But that isn't even in play for this. Since there is no crime, no charges, there is no need for due process of anything.

 

[MisterBeale]

Trump lied when he said the Barr Memo exonerated him. His supporters are desperately trying to defend his lie.

But the thing we are losing sight of here, is the the memo made clear that it exonerated Trump of having anything to do with the Russians.

NOW, explain to me how one can be guilty of trying to obstruct justice of a crime that does not exist?

 

[Lesh]

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.”

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.”

Nope...that's "direct" from Bill Barr.

We have no idea what Mueller actually put in his report

 

[jc456]

Trump lied when he said the Barr Memo exonerated him. His supporters are desperately trying to defend his lie.

But the thing we are losing sight of here, is the the memo made clear that it exonerated Trump of having anything to do with the Russians.

NOW, explain to me how one can be guilty of trying to obstruct justice of a crime that does not exist?

there you go!!

 

[Lesh]

NOW, explain to me how one can be guilty of trying to obstruct justice of a crime that does not exist?

A, I doesn't exonerate Trump of anything. It SAYS that Mueller didn't prosecute

B. Of COURSE successful Obstruction of Justice can be prosecuted without the underlying crime being prosecuted.

It happens all the time..

Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby are two famous examples.

SUCCESSFUL Obstruction could very easily prevent a crime from being prosecuted

 

[Lesh]

That's an absurd claim.

 

[jc456]

NOW, explain to me how one can be guilty of trying to obstruct justice of a crime that does not exist?

A, I doesn't exonerate Trump of anything. It SAYS that Mueller didn't prosecute

B. Of COURSE successful Obstruction of Justice can be prosecuted without the underlying crime being prosecuted.

It happens all the time..

Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby are two famous examples.

SUCCESSFUL Obstruction could very easily prevent a crime from being prosecuted

 

[FA_Q2]

What does “does not exonerate” mean?

It means there was no or an insufficient degree of credible exculpatory evidence uncovered during the investigation to justify exoneration.

Oh look. Everyone simply ignored your statement.

What a surprise....

/sacasm

 

[jc456]

sarcasm

 

[Rambunctious]

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.” . . . . "

Mueller exonerated Trump over collusion...AG Barr exonerated Trump for obstruction of justice...at least that's the way I see it.....

 

[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.” . . . . "

Mueller exonerated Trump over collusion...AG Barr exonerated Trump for obstruction of justice...at least that's the way I see it.....

well I agree with the person that stated if there is no crime, there can be no obstruction. See one would obstruct a criminal investigation. since there wasn't a criminal investigation ever here, then there can be no obstruction. Trying to find out if there was collusion is not investigating a crime. it is looking to find a crime. that's different.

 

[FA_Q2]

The left here is over focusing on an idiotic point - that Muller did not 'exonerate' the charge of obstruction - something that no one anywhere actually expected. At no point was Muller going to state that Trump was exonerated from obstruction nor is that what the average person really cares about. For two years the left has been Trumpeting Putin's lap dog, Russian plant and other such nonsense. The investigation revealed that there was no conspiracy and that the Trump campaign did not work with the Russians.

The results are in - the investigation found out that Trump did not work with the Russians.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.” . . . . "

You may have taken the time to read it but you obviously didn't understand it.

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion.

Not having enough evidence to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same thing as none, fool.

Bullshit.

I QUOTE;

"But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

IOW, NONE.

Damn you folks will not be deterred, will you?

The Devil is in the detail. Is Julian Assange part of the Russian government? Was Roger Stone, who quit or was fired from the campaign, considered part of the Trump Campaign during the so-called coordination?

The optics remain. Trump gleefully asked for and gladly accepted the obvious Russian aid in the extreme demonetization of an American politician and political party.

That is what you think. The summery states otherwise.

I trust the conclusions by the FBI FAR more than the bobble heads over at CNN.