Explain how this is an exoneration

[bripat9643]

C)Still, Mueller found absolutely zero evidence that could be used to charge any crime whatsoever.

Moron, If Trump were NOT president, he'd be facing a common trial TODAY....

Your screwed up president cannot currently be indicted......BUT Mueller laid out the CRIMES to haunt the orange buffoon when he is out of office........Right now you nitwits are backing a future felon.......LOL

(Trump NEEDS to be reelected to surpass the statutes of limitation for his several indictable offenses.)

Wrong.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

...So please explain how this exonerates Donald?

Wrong question

The #resistance has been whining about the vast Russian conspiracy for over 2 years now, the MSM promoted breaking 'bombshells' 24/7 and all the brainwashed Hillary disciples said the Mueller inquisition would prove it any day now...

Why don't you explain what happened instead?

 

[Olde Europe]

Read the first paragraph again. "Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment."

To go forward with an obstruction charge at least one of those areas has to have documented proof, that can be used in a Court of Law. Mueller has no such proof. He just has statements and second-hand testimony of issues that would have happened if not for others preventing it.

Mueller didn't charge because Mueller had no such evidence. There is nothing there for Obstruction. Just a waste of 35 million taxpayer dollars. The House has zero idea what they will do or even want to do.

Trump has beaten them at their own game and next up is Horowitz, Huber and Barr reports. Those will destroy the Obama administration and the crooks in the WH, DOJ and FBI, at the time. 25 members of the FBI have either been fired, resigned or demoted since this fiasco started. That's a pretty amazing number for the premier law enforcement agency in the World.

So, that's four paragraphs of discombobulated gobbledygook thrown in here for no purpose other than to obfuscate and conceal the fact you're not man enough to admit you were wrong on this: "And because there was no conspiracy found it is impossible to obstruct justice."

Mueller didn't charge Trump because DoJ guidelines prevented him from doing so. Read the report already.

Mueller extracted enough dollars from Manafort so that the Mueller report is fully paid for. That's what occasionally happens when real criminals are being investigated. So you can shove your sanctimonious whine about wasted taxpayer dollars.

 

[SweetSue92]

Mueller's report explains his prosecutorial decisions in four points.

1. The DOJ's OLC has issued the opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted, and the SC accepted that opinion for the purposes of his investigation, further recognizing that a DOJ indictment might preempt the constitutional mechanism of impeachment.
2. The investigation was nevertheless warranted because an criminal investigation is permitted under the OLC's standard, even when an indictment is not. Other individuals engaging in obstruction could be prosecuted immediately. And the President is not immune from prosecution after leaving office, regardless of whether impeachment proceedings are brought or are successful. So the investigation served the purpose of preserving evidence while witness memories were fresh.
3. The normal public mechanism for an individual accused of a crime to clear themselves is a speedy public criminal trial. If the sitting President cannot be brought to a criminal trial while in office, then it would be unfair for the SC to affirmatively accuse him of a crime that cannot be prosecuted in a criminal court of law at this time. Even a sealed indictment's secrecy could not be guaranteed to be preserved. Accordingly, a criminal accusation against a sitting President could be harmful to the country, because the accusation cannot be resolved in the normal adversarial manner of a criminal trial.
   
4. The results of the investigation do not allow the SC to conclude that the President did not commit obstruction.

So please explain how this exonerates Donald?

I read the "Obstruction" portion of the report. It read to me like a bunch of high school girls engaging in he-said, she-said. It's pathetic, and I don't care. And the thing is: it's all over NOTHING. It's an innocent man trying to protect himself from a crime he didn't commit.

In the words of your overlords MOVE ON

 

[Aldo Raine]

Nobody is scared of cottonballs Tramp or his AG. In fact I welcome their investigation because if wrongdoing is found I want it to be dealt with regardless of party!

Good for you..

Given that... Since we know for a fact Hillary mishandled 1000s of classified documents, ignored FOIA laws, and deleted 30,000 subpoenaed emails, how long do you think she should be in jail for justice to be served?

Do you think Trump will pardon Hillary? Do you think he should?

She should be put in jail for whatever the law says is a fair sentence. Why is this so hard for ewe? By the way did that co

Yes it is, both manifestations of it.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

and

Trump Defense Syndrome

Both are equally strong and equally faithful to their religion

Sorry bub, but Trump defenders don't worship Trump. Trump defenders are interested in protecting the Rule of Law. I wouldn't want to see ANY President be subject to spying, entrapment, and an unethical investigation the way Trump has been. If you had a shred of integrity, you'd feel the same way.

Sorry dude, but a great many of Trump's followers truly worship the man. he can do no wrong in their eyes and will defend every single thing he does. They are easy to spot, they are the ones that are incapable of saying 'yeah, that was a dumb thing to say"....go look in the mirror and you will see one

You're projecting bub. And your powers of logic are as poor as your powers of perception. I'm a gal.

Trump is a flawed human being as we all knew prior to the election. No credible person ever called him a "sort of God'. He never claimed to have power over NATURE by halting the rise of the oceans. What he has done is FIGHT BACK. Normal people are sick and tired of being attacked and demonized by the Prog-Left while their supposed leaders remained idle or made excuses. That's what has you loons TERRIFIED...along with with the spotlight on the Prog-Dem corruption the Barr investigation into Obamagate will place. There isn't enough popcorn to do justice to your Epic Meltdown when you finally understand that Obama oversaw the surveillance operation on a political opponent and used the powers of the executive branch to punish political enemies. Worse Than Watergate.

Nobody is scared of cottonballs Tramp or his AG. In fact I welcome their investigation because if wrongdoing is found I want it to be dealt with regardless of party!

Methinks this is a classic case of "be careful what you wish for".

Time to order more popcorn.

GET IT DONE! Tell cottonballs and his puss y AG to get off their asses and get to it!

 

[Claudette]

No crime; therefore, no obstruction.

Yup its tough to obstruct something that didn't happen.

Common Sense 101

 

[Disir]

No crime; therefore, no obstruction.

Yup its tough to obstruct something that didn't happen.

Common Sense 101

Even NPR has moved on from obstruction to salivating over just getting an unethical at this point.

 

[easyt65]

1. Mueller did not base his investigation on this.

It says it right there in his report, black and white, clear as day, page 1 of Vol II, page 213 of the combined PDF. If you can't be bothered to be up on the blatant facts then the rest of your lies are dismissed.

Link...

Also, again, it has nothing to do with the fact that NO OBSTRUCTION ever occurred.

THINKING about doing it but NOT doing it is NOT a crime....unless you post a link to that Democrat ' THOUGHT CRIMES' Bill they passed.

 

[Olde Europe]

please explain how it implicates him.

For starters, it lays out 10 instances where he committed obstruction of justice.

Then, if that is the case, why did he not recommend that the information be presented to Congress for impeachment and removal?

That would be because it's not his job to tell his superiors (Rosenstein / Barr), or Congress, for that matter, what to do.

 

[easyt65]

The FAILURE to prove ''GUILT' by an investigator / prosecutor is a finding of 'INNOCENT'.

3 years, 2 investigations, & 1 Mueller report failed to prove 'Guilt', failed to substantiate the false claims, failed to produce even 1 indictment / conviction for collusion / obstruction. NOT ONE!

'INNOCENT'

The Surprises in the Mueller Report

Although the report stated that there was “no evidence” of conspiracy or coordination, it left open the possibility that there may be evidence out there that the president’s associates suppressed. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Some information was screened even from the special counsel and his team. Several people affiliated with the Trump campaign (including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort) lied or provided incomplete information to the special counsel about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals. Still others deleted communications or used encryption that did not provide for the long-term retention of data. And with respect to redactions within the report, the ones concerning the Trump campaign’s interest in WikiLeaks’ releases of hacked material are particularly concerning.

The take away for me is that there was enough obstruction on the conspiracy investigation.

'There may be e evidence out there that was supressed,

BWUHAHAHAHAHA...

'WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, BUT THERE MAY BE EVIDENCE STILL OUT THERE...WE JUST NEVER FOUND IT AFTER 3 YEARS, 2 INVESTIGATIONS, THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUNENTS, AND HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES INTERVIEWED.....

 

[iceberg]

and the people who prosecute says no more indictments.

For the reasons summarized in my OP. Mueller didn't bring additional indictment based on the theory that a sitting President can't be indicted. It's a lack of authority, not a lack of evidence.

so again, under what conditions will you be satisfied bwrring bad things happening to trump?

You are attempting to change the subject.

not at all. i am trying to define the parameters of it.

if there is simply no way you'll accept trump isn't guilty, then there's no sense in talking to you. you're a megaphone for the ORANGE MAN BAD mantra and that's all there is to it. what i continue to find funny are that the people who can defend hillary and say those after her are crazy, delusional and the like; you have zero issue doing the very same thing/things to someone else you happen to hate, yet that's smart and analytical.

how did that happen?

stupid to question hillary
intelligent to question trump

I'll be glad to go through your questions line by line with you and debate them ONLY IF you have an open mind to being wrong. otherwise you're trying to sell me something and i have to think you'd avoid that / call it out IF it were done to you. however, i see no sense in going round and round and simply changing names of who we're mad at and using tactics we mock on others.

so - again - is there a point in this conversation that you would go "hey, i was wrong and trump didn't do these things" or are you in fact going to keep sliding from "colluded with russia" to "obstructed justice" to "where the **** are his taxes" like all the rest?

and again - if there is no point in which you will say trump didn't do it, then why would anyone waste their time in speaking with you about it?

for the record - if mueller would have had physical evidence against trump that flowed in a logical pattern that he did in fact commit crimes of some nature, then i would go with it and continue to keep an open mind while trump was then given the opportunity to defend/explain himself. if he could not adequately do so, then we follow the course of law against trump, just as i want the course of law to be held to us all. however, if i am wrong i will not change the source of my anger and get mad at trump for something else just to keep my anger alive. those actions are done for ourselves, not honesty, huh?

if i had to go against the findings of someone who looked at every possible angle for a year and pretend my internet research is better than their in person research, maybe i'm doing it for me. if i have to pretend this person is covering for someone they don't like just to keep my anger alive...

maybe again i'm doing it for me.

we get angry and demand social justice and then throw tantrums at the prospect of being wrong. sounds like a child not getting a toy in wal mart, doesn't it?

 

[gtopa1]

Mueller's report explains his prosecutorial decisions in four points.

1. The DOJ's OLC has issued the opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted, and the SC accepted that opinion for the purposes of his investigation, further recognizing that a DOJ indictment might preempt the constitutional mechanism of impeachment.
2. The investigation was nevertheless warranted because an criminal investigation is permitted under the OLC's standard, even when an indictment is not. Other individuals engaging in obstruction could be prosecuted immediately. And the President is not immune from prosecution after leaving office, regardless of whether impeachment proceedings are brought or are successful. So the investigation served the purpose of preserving evidence while witness memories were fresh.
3. The normal public mechanism for an individual accused of a crime to clear themselves is a speedy public criminal trial. If the sitting President cannot be brought to a criminal trial while in office, then it would be unfair for the SC to affirmatively accuse him of a crime that cannot be prosecuted in a criminal court of law at this time. Even a sealed indictment's secrecy could not be guaranteed to be preserved. Accordingly, a criminal accusation against a sitting President could be harmful to the country, because the accusation cannot be resolved in the normal adversarial manner of a criminal trial.
   
4. The results of the investigation do not allow the SC to conclude that the President did not commit obstruction.

So please explain how this exonerates Donald?

No indictments.

Next!!!!!

Greg

 

[iceberg]

please explain how it implicates him.

For starters, it lays out 10 instances where he committed obstruction of justice.

Then, if that is the case, why did he not recommend that the information be presented to Congress for impeachment and removal?

in order to keep your hate alive, you start finding any place you can to put it and "double down"

that's what many on the left continue to do. it's like mortimer at the end of coming to america screaming TURN BACK ON THE MACHINES in that they want to KEEP INVESTIGATING!!! til they find anything at all.

when pushed hard enough these people will revert to LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID TO HILLARY and that's the final straw of nothing. that simply says this is revenge politics, not a search for truth and justice.

 

[iceberg]

“The investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”.

FYI, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

How do obstruct justice when a crime was never committed? Just askin'!

The same way an "innocent" defendant can intimidate a trial witness. If you don't understand this, then you really have a lot of catching up to do. But I suspect the real problem is that don't want to understand it.

In any event, you never answered the original question.

WTF? That makes no sense whatsoever? Did you read that after typing it?

It could be applied to your brain! There is an absence of evidence that your brain exists, therefore there is evidence that your brain is absent!

she's down to flipping her lips around blithering saying anything she can think of and the words...well they're just coming up wrong and not saying much of anything at all.

 

[dudmuck]

The FAILURE to prove ''GUILT' by an investigator / prosecutor is a finding of 'INNOCENT'.

3 years, 2 investigations, & 1 Mueller report failed to prove 'Guilt', failed to substantiate the false claims, failed to produce even 1 indictment / conviction for collusion / obstruction. NOT ONE!

'INNOCENT'

The Surprises in the Mueller Report

Although the report stated that there was “no evidence” of conspiracy or coordination, it left open the possibility that there may be evidence out there that the president’s associates suppressed. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Some information was screened even from the special counsel and his team. Several people affiliated with the Trump campaign (including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort) lied or provided incomplete information to the special counsel about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals. Still others deleted communications or used encryption that did not provide for the long-term retention of data. And with respect to redactions within the report, the ones concerning the Trump campaign’s interest in WikiLeaks’ releases of hacked material are particularly concerning.

The take away for me is that there was enough obstruction on the conspiracy investigation.

'There may be e evidence out there that was supressed,

BWUHAHAHAHAHA...

'WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, BUT THERE MAY BE EVIDENCE STILL OUT THERE...WE JUST NEVER FOUND IT AFTER 3 YEARS, 2 INVESTIGATIONS, THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUNENTS, AND HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES INTERVIEWED.....

Mueller referred evidence of 14 potential crimes to the feds, and only two of them we know about.

 

[iceberg]

The FAILURE to prove ''GUILT' by an investigator / prosecutor is a finding of 'INNOCENT'.

3 years, 2 investigations, & 1 Mueller report failed to prove 'Guilt', failed to substantiate the false claims, failed to produce even 1 indictment / conviction for collusion / obstruction. NOT ONE!

'INNOCENT'

The Surprises in the Mueller Report

Although the report stated that there was “no evidence” of conspiracy or coordination, it left open the possibility that there may be evidence out there that the president’s associates suppressed. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Some information was screened even from the special counsel and his team. Several people affiliated with the Trump campaign (including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort) lied or provided incomplete information to the special counsel about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals. Still others deleted communications or used encryption that did not provide for the long-term retention of data. And with respect to redactions within the report, the ones concerning the Trump campaign’s interest in WikiLeaks’ releases of hacked material are particularly concerning.

The take away for me is that there was enough obstruction on the conspiracy investigation.

'There may be e evidence out there that was supressed,

BWUHAHAHAHAHA...

'WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, BUT THERE MAY BE EVIDENCE STILL OUT THERE...WE JUST NEVER FOUND IT AFTER 3 YEARS, 2 INVESTIGATIONS, THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUNENTS, AND HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES INTERVIEWED.....

Mueller referred evidence of 14 potential crimes to the feds, and only two of them we know about.

oh - you're using memes vs. counter facts. please tell me how this makes you actually intelligent vs. another moron dancing around having to have an opinion.

 

[dudmuck]

The FAILURE to prove ''GUILT' by an investigator / prosecutor is a finding of 'INNOCENT'.

3 years, 2 investigations, & 1 Mueller report failed to prove 'Guilt', failed to substantiate the false claims, failed to produce even 1 indictment / conviction for collusion / obstruction. NOT ONE!

'INNOCENT'

The Surprises in the Mueller Report

Although the report stated that there was “no evidence” of conspiracy or coordination, it left open the possibility that there may be evidence out there that the president’s associates suppressed. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Some information was screened even from the special counsel and his team. Several people affiliated with the Trump campaign (including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort) lied or provided incomplete information to the special counsel about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals. Still others deleted communications or used encryption that did not provide for the long-term retention of data. And with respect to redactions within the report, the ones concerning the Trump campaign’s interest in WikiLeaks’ releases of hacked material are particularly concerning.

The take away for me is that there was enough obstruction on the conspiracy investigation.

'There may be e evidence out there that was supressed,

BWUHAHAHAHAHA...

'WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, BUT THERE MAY BE EVIDENCE STILL OUT THERE...WE JUST NEVER FOUND IT AFTER 3 YEARS, 2 INVESTIGATIONS, THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUNENTS, AND HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES INTERVIEWED.....

Mueller referred evidence of 14 potential crimes to the feds, and only two of them we know about.

oh - you're using memes vs. counter facts. please tell me how this makes you actually intelligent vs. another moron dancing around having to have an opinion.

that was already provided right here --> Mueller referred evidence of 14 potential crimes to the feds, and only two of them we know about.

 

[iceberg]

The FAILURE to prove ''GUILT' by an investigator / prosecutor is a finding of 'INNOCENT'.

3 years, 2 investigations, & 1 Mueller report failed to prove 'Guilt', failed to substantiate the false claims, failed to produce even 1 indictment / conviction for collusion / obstruction. NOT ONE!

'INNOCENT'

The Surprises in the Mueller Report

Although the report stated that there was “no evidence” of conspiracy or coordination, it left open the possibility that there may be evidence out there that the president’s associates suppressed. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Some information was screened even from the special counsel and his team. Several people affiliated with the Trump campaign (including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort) lied or provided incomplete information to the special counsel about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals. Still others deleted communications or used encryption that did not provide for the long-term retention of data. And with respect to redactions within the report, the ones concerning the Trump campaign’s interest in WikiLeaks’ releases of hacked material are particularly concerning.

The take away for me is that there was enough obstruction on the conspiracy investigation.

'There may be e evidence out there that was supressed,

BWUHAHAHAHAHA...

'WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, BUT THERE MAY BE EVIDENCE STILL OUT THERE...WE JUST NEVER FOUND IT AFTER 3 YEARS, 2 INVESTIGATIONS, THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUNENTS, AND HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES INTERVIEWED.....

Mueller referred evidence of 14 potential crimes to the feds, and only two of them we know about.

oh - you're using memes vs. counter facts. please tell me how this makes you actually intelligent vs. another moron dancing around having to have an opinion.

that was already provided right here --> Mueller referred evidence of 14 potential crimes to the feds, and only two of them we know about.

yet you bypass all the other "facts" around this so you can focus on ANYTHING that will allow you to believe your and your side is correct.

i asked stormy and she ran away crying about something i lost interest in. so i'll ask you and honestly expect you to cry louder and meme up with something stupid.

under what conditions that do not result in trump being prosecuted or ran out of office are you willing to end this?

 

[dudmuck]

The Surprises in the Mueller Report

Although the report stated that there was “no evidence” of conspiracy or coordination, it left open the possibility that there may be evidence out there that the president’s associates suppressed. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Some information was screened even from the special counsel and his team. Several people affiliated with the Trump campaign (including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort) lied or provided incomplete information to the special counsel about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals. Still others deleted communications or used encryption that did not provide for the long-term retention of data. And with respect to redactions within the report, the ones concerning the Trump campaign’s interest in WikiLeaks’ releases of hacked material are particularly concerning.

The take away for me is that there was enough obstruction on the conspiracy investigation.

'There may be e evidence out there that was supressed,

BWUHAHAHAHAHA...

'WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, BUT THERE MAY BE EVIDENCE STILL OUT THERE...WE JUST NEVER FOUND IT AFTER 3 YEARS, 2 INVESTIGATIONS, THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUNENTS, AND HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES INTERVIEWED.....

Mueller referred evidence of 14 potential crimes to the feds, and only two of them we know about.

oh - you're using memes vs. counter facts. please tell me how this makes you actually intelligent vs. another moron dancing around having to have an opinion.

that was already provided right here --> Mueller referred evidence of 14 potential crimes to the feds, and only two of them we know about.

yet you bypass all the other "facts" around this so you can focus on ANYTHING that will allow you to believe your and your side is correct.

i asked stormy and she ran away crying about something i lost interest in. so i'll ask you and honestly expect you to cry louder and meme up with something stupid.

under what conditions that do not result in trump being prosecuted or ran out of office are you willing to end this?

If you have evidence of innocence, then present it instead of whining.
Proving guilt is a slow and arduous process due to all the obstruction.

 

[Uncensored2008]

FYI, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

FYI, absence of reason is not reasonable.

The same way an "innocent" defendant can intimidate a trial witness. If you don't understand this, then you really have a lot of catching up to do. But I suspect the real problem is that don't want to understand it.

In any event, you never answered the original question.

The Usurper infringed on your entitlement. You set out to destroy him on dozens of occasions. Obstruction? Oh yes, there was obstruction. When Hillary Clinton used Fusion GPS to pay the Russians to fabricate a dossier of dirt to use against the Usurper, that was just dirty tricks. BUT when Obama had his FSB PAY Steele for the document, that was unquestionably obstruction of justice and probably espionage. When James Comey torpedoed the investigation of Hillary Clinton, that was obstruction of justice. When Peter Strzok perjured himself on a FISA application based on the Dossier bought from Russia, that was obstruction. When Andrew McCabe expanded that warrant to SPY on the president elect, perjuring himself on the FISA warrant, that was obstruction, and an act of treason. When the deep state Illuminati plotted a coup against the President of the United States, like this is some third world banana republic, THAT was obstruction, and treason.

There is plenty of obstruction, it just doesn't happen to be by the president, who is clearly the victim in this vile charade.

Do you REALLY think your vile, filthy, treasonous party is just going to skate away from this? No harm, no foul?

William Barr Promises to Investigate Obama Officials for “Spying” on Trump Campaign