Explain how this is an exoneration

[Stormy Daniels]

You are ignoring what is right in the OP. Mueller explicitly states not wanting to preempt constitutionally proscribed impeachment by Congress was part of his reason for not reaching a "traditional prosecutorial judgment". And if you don't want to take my word for it, go read Mueller's own words. It's on page 213 of the downloadable PDFs of the report that are now all over the internet--i.e. page 1 of volume II of his report.

And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.²


² See U.S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf. OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).​

Yep. Mueller isn't particularly subtle about it.

Exactly. It's not like he was speaking in code.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You....didn't bother to read it. It says it right there, in black and white. Page 1 of Volume II. Page 213 of the combined PDF.

Vol. 2???

You mean the CNN audition? The part that has ZERO legal weight and is little more than Torquemada crying that he couldn't GET the president as he was tasked by his democrat masters with doing?

Hey, you got completely destroyed by this, but the recounts and faithless electors will get him.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

...So please explain how this exonerates Donald?

Wrong question

So you can't explain it. You'd just prefer nobody question the bullshit you wish to believe.

wouldn't this fit a reply to you about what would it take to put this behind you and accept that trump did nothing wrong?

you can't explain that, or at least won't even try.

This is all that you have. Begging people to simply ignore the facts that are in plain sight, and to just forget about it all.

Well, I'm not biting. In this thread, we talk about how is it that Mueller's report amounts to an exoneration for the President, as it is being alleged to do. If you cannot explain, and instead insist on desperately trying to derail onto wild tangents, then I will have to conclude that you know it doesn't amount to an exoneration after all, and you really don't want to admit it, so you're hoping everyone will stop thinking about it.

what facts? i've asked you to tell me what it would take for you to go "wow, we were wrong about trump" and you've ignored that question 4 times now. why are you ignoring that question so much? hate the answer? don't want to say "there is NO way that day will ever come" and show off your bias?

you're hoping people will ignore 395 pages of "trump didn't do it" and focus on some doubt you can muster in what you're able to still cling to in a desperate attempt to be "RIGHT" about "orange man bad" after all.

you're looking more pathetic than an aging stripper still humping poles for a buck.

Okay, you just don't want to talk about it. Go start your own thread on whatever other subject you want to discuss instead. You are just wasting everyone's time here.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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 crime

 

[Stormy Daniels]

You....didn't bother to read it. It says it right there, in black and white. Page 1 of Volume II. Page 213 of the combined PDF.

Vol. 2???

You mean the CNN audition? The part that has ZERO legal weight and is little more than Torquemada crying that he couldn't GET the president as he was tasked by his democrat masters with doing?

Hey, you got completely destroyed by this, but the recounts and faithless electors will get him.

Wow, you're really butthurt by Mueller's report. In any event, your sad has-ing doesn't have anything to do with bripat's flagrantly false claim that the report doesn't say what it clearly says, exactly in the location that I've cited.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

You are ignoring what is right in the OP. Mueller explicitly states not wanting to preempt constitutionally proscribed impeachment by Congress was part of his reason for not reaching a "traditional prosecutorial judgment". And if you don't want to take my word for it, go read Mueller's own words. It's on page 213 of the downloadable PDFs of the report that are now all over the internet--i.e. page 1 of volume II of his report.

well since you ignore the rest of it where trump didn't collude, i find it ironic you're pinning your hopes on 2-3 of 400 pages.

Even when those 2-3 pages outline the thinking behind what follows?

I find your unwillingness to actually read what you have repeatedly asked for to be not only disingenuous but objectively stupid given your arguments.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

just listen to how stupid we've become

I know.....right?
As if anyone listens to wtitten words.

speaking of how stupid we've become, their poster boy just checked in.

I'm sorry. Could you speak up? I missed that.

 

[iceberg]

Wrong question

So you can't explain it. You'd just prefer nobody question the bullshit you wish to believe.

wouldn't this fit a reply to you about what would it take to put this behind you and accept that trump did nothing wrong?

you can't explain that, or at least won't even try.

This is all that you have. Begging people to simply ignore the facts that are in plain sight, and to just forget about it all.

Well, I'm not biting. In this thread, we talk about how is it that Mueller's report amounts to an exoneration for the President, as it is being alleged to do. If you cannot explain, and instead insist on desperately trying to derail onto wild tangents, then I will have to conclude that you know it doesn't amount to an exoneration after all, and you really don't want to admit it, so you're hoping everyone will stop thinking about it.

what facts? i've asked you to tell me what it would take for you to go "wow, we were wrong about trump" and you've ignored that question 4 times now. why are you ignoring that question so much? hate the answer? don't want to say "there is NO way that day will ever come" and show off your bias?

you're hoping people will ignore 395 pages of "trump didn't do it" and focus on some doubt you can muster in what you're able to still cling to in a desperate attempt to be "RIGHT" about "orange man bad" after all.

you're looking more pathetic than an aging stripper still humping poles for a buck.

Okay, you just don't want to talk about it. Go start your own thread on whatever other subject you want to discuss instead. You are just wasting everyone's time here.

ok - so you choose to miss my SEVERAL posts where i go into a LOT of conversation about it - define WHY i am asking if you have any way of saying you were wrong and you keep ignoring it.

i've asked you directly about what can exonerate trump and you won't answer it so it DOES apply to the topic at hand.

obviously i want to talk about it. you just want people to agree with you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

All of you Stalinsts who were 2 weeks ago denying such an idea, in fact I think I saw a few posts from YOU where you demanded that a sitting president could and would be indicted.

I don't think that I've ever said any such thing around here. Personally, I don't believe it was ever the framers' intention for a President to be immune from prosecution. I believe that impeachment is an available tool the framers included to minimize the risk that a President could corruptly use the power of his office to evade a criminal prosecution and also to remove a President who becomes effectively incapacitated by conviction and imprisonment. But I see nothing to imply that the framers expected impeachment to be the sole remedy, and the idea is inconsistent with the historical precedents of impeachment powers inherited from English law that existed in the time of the framers. I've stated these opinions around here, I'm sure. But I've always rejected the gleeful hopes many Democrats exhibit of seeing Donald under house arrest in the Oval Office. I've never believed that an indictment against Donald was coming, nor have I ever claimed that one was coming.

However, all of this is mostly irrelevant because the matter at hand is Mueller's report and how it allegedly exonerates Donald. Mueller states that for the purposes of his investigation, he accepted the view that (for multiple reasons) he could not bring an indictment against the sitting President.

I find it amusing that the Soros hive has so desperately latched on to this to try and convince the faithful that you didn't really fail..

Here's the thing - you have ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. Not a hint or a shred of evidence of any crime. Torquemada in part 1 of his report entirely exonerates the president. Part 2 is his audition for CNN and carries no legal weight. Mewler makes it clear that he worked for the democrats, not for America - AND that he utterly failed to bring down the Usurper as he was tasked with. He hopes that somehow congress can take out their enemy.

Sniff, He fire James Comey - who worked at his pleasure - NO FAIR
Sniff, he talked about fire ME (Torquemada) because I packed my kangaroo court with democrat operatives and engaged in malicious prosecution tactics right out of the 14th century
Sniff, though there is not a hint of collusion with Russia, the president instructed his staff to tell OUR press that there was no collusion - NO FAIR


Dude, the Grand Inquisition itself was obstruction of justice, and obstruction of the Executive branch of the Government of the United States.

 

[Olde Europe]

Mueller report, Vol II, p2:

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.​

If there is a more tortured way of saying "Guilty as sin", I'd like to see it.

Of course, "exoneration" is the Trumpletons' unanimous conclusion. Good doggies...

 

[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.

All of you Stalinsts who were 2 weeks ago denying such an idea, in fact I think I saw a few posts from YOU where you demanded that a sitting president could and would be indicted.

I don't think that I've ever said any such thing around here. Personally, I don't believe it was ever the framers' intention for a President to be immune from prosecution. I believe that impeachment is an available tool the framers included to minimize the risk that a President could corruptly use the power of his office to evade a criminal prosecution and also to remove a President who becomes effectively incapacitated by conviction and imprisonment. But I see nothing to imply that the framers expected impeachment to be the sole remedy, and the idea is inconsistent with the historical precedents of impeachment powers inherited from English law that existed in the time of the framers. I've stated these opinions around here, I'm sure. But I've always rejected the gleeful hopes many Democrats exhibit of seeing Donald under house arrest in the Oval Office. I've never believed that an indictment against Donald was coming, nor have I ever claimed that one was coming.

However, all of this is mostly irrelevant because the matter at hand is Mueller's report and how it allegedly exonerates Donald. Mueller states that for the purposes of his investigation, he accepted the view that (for multiple reasons) he could not bring an indictment against the sitting President.

I find it amusing that the Soros hive has so desperately latched on to this to try and convince the faithful that you didn't really fail..

Here's the thing - you have ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. Not a hint or a shred of evidence of any crime. Torquemada in part 1 of his report entirely exonerates the president. Part 2 is his audition for CNN and carries no legal weight. Mewler makes it clear that he worked for the democrats, not for America - AND that he utterly failed to bring down the Usurper as he was tasked with. He hopes that somehow congress can take out their enemy.

Sniff, He fire James Comey - who worked at his pleasure - NO FAIR
Sniff, he talked about fire ME (Torquemada) because I packed my kangaroo court with democrat operatives and engaged in malicious prosecution tactics right out of the 14th century
Sniff, though there is not a hint of collusion with Russia, the president instructed his staff to tell OUR press that there was no collusion - NO FAIR


Dude, the Grand Inquisition itself was obstruction of justice, and obstruction of the Executive branch of the Government of the United States.

yea, look at her dance as if i held out $100 around my questions around the very question she's asking. she doesn't want to talk about it, she wants to sell something.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You....didn't bother to read it. It says it right there, in black and white. Page 1 of Volume II. Page 213 of the combined PDF.

Vol. 2???

You mean the CNN audition? The part that has ZERO legal weight and is little more than Torquemada crying that he couldn't GET the president as he was tasked by his democrat masters with doing?

Hey, you got completely destroyed by this, but the recounts and faithless electors will get him.

Wow, you're really butthurt by Mueller's report. In any event, your sad has-ing doesn't have anything to do with bripat's flagrantly false claim that the report doesn't say what it clearly says, exactly in the location that I've cited.

Well someone is butthurt alright, comrade.

I didn't read part 2 until this weekend, TALK ABOUT BUTT HURT... ******* Torquemada who was careful to be "lawyerly" in part 1 instantly becomes a butthurt little partisan ****. Like a Boxer who lost a fight screaming "No FAIR, I woooda one but he fought back."

But ignoring how CHILDISH Torquemada comes off, let's look about halfway down page 213, which you seem so invested in.

So Comrade, what DOES ;

"traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution"

mean to you Soros drones and to the hive? So Torquemada states that he DID IN FACT exonerate the president with the declination to prosecute, but that gives him a sadz, so he will just violate the law;

"but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

Well how about that? ******* scofflaw decided not to follow "traditional" ie legal precedent.

ONLY problem is that he CAN'T, Torquemada has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to levy false charges, despite how badly he wants to. See, Jeff Sessions is gone and Barr made it clear that if Mewler violated the law further, he would put Mewler in prison.

So the ONLY thing the corrupt little shit can do is whine.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

If a man was sitting on your chest and banging your head against the sidewalk what would you do?
1) allow him to murder you for political correctness?
2) call Chuck Schumer and ask him what to do?
3) call the police an tell them where to find you body?
4) blow him away and save your own life?

 

[easyt65]

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

14 POTENTIAL crimes? He's a PROSECUTOR - either they ARE crimes or they are NOT!

The fact that Mueller did NOT call them crimes, the fact that he declared no more indictments are coming, the fact that not one single indictment or conviction was for collusion and / or Obstruction says all there is to say....

...unless you can provide a link to that 'THOUGHT CRIMES' bill the Democrats must have passed!

 

[iceberg]

10 factors making Russia election interference the most enduring scandal of the Obama era

 

[Edgetho]

What the **** is a 'potential' Crime?

Too many dimocrap FILTH think Minority Report is a documentary

stupid *****

dimocraps are scum

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

If Trayvon Martin was White would Obama care about this story?
If Trayvon Martin was White would the Press make it a national News story?
If Zimmerman was Black would this have been made a national News story?

 

[Uncensored2008]

10 factors making Russia election interference the most enduring scandal of the Obama era

Attkinson hits a homerun.

The Stalinists and their corrupt media seem to think they can just lie this into saying the opposite of what it says.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The report doesn't say anything like that, dipshit.

LOL....
It says exactly that, dope.

Read the report.

Quote where it says that, asshole.

 

[Edgetho]

Quote where it says that, asshole.

dimocrap scum are NOT assholes.

Assholes serve a function. dimocraps are simply scum. Useless scum.

Except for maybe bipedal minefield clearing