Explain how this is an exoneration

[iceberg]

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.

she does her homework and stays with rule of law, not emotional state of mind.

 

[iceberg]

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.

stupid people do miss the obvious.

move along now son.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I see Stormy Daniels high tailed it out of here when I destroyed his/her/xir silly talking point on indictments.

 

[easyt65]

If you have evidence of innocence, then present it instead of whining
.

Thank you for proving Jonathon Gruber was right about you snowflakes, that you are dumb as hell and that it is your ignorance that allows Democrats to get away with what they do.

In this country, innocence does NOT have to be PROVEN. The burden of proof is NOT on the ACCUSED but on the accuser. YOU FAIL!

Proving guilt is a slow and arduous process due to all the obstruction.

3 years, 2 investigations, 1 Mueller report wrapping up an investigation that covered thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of witnesses, and exposed numerous crimes perpetrated by Democrats, most notably the failed attempted coup by the Obama administration's DOJ, NSA, CIA, and FBI Directors and leadership engaging in FISA Court Abuses, Perjury, mishandling classified,Seditious Conspiracy, AND it all being started by the DNC's criminal 2016 candidate engaging in collusion with and paying foreign spies and Russians in an attempt to alter the 2016 election - WHICH THEY DID!

Anyone who continues to deny reality - who continues to defend the exposed proven Leftist Democrat criminals / traitors while clinging on to more false narratives proven once and for all to have been false - that there was never a crime committed that warranted this investigation to begin with - has zero credibility and is not worth wasting a second on.

If, for example, you can not acknowledge the FACT that the FBI publicly stated it had recovered over 15,000 official subpoenaed documents - documents that had never been turned in for archival as per the FOIA and Federal Records Act...CRIMES (approx. 30,000+ criminal counts) - Hillary and her team tried to hide and that this id definitive proof that Hillary Clinton DID break laws, then you are either a delusional whack-job or a complete liar. Either way, the same nutters who could not accept the results of the 'Gore-Hanging Chads' election are the same snowflakes who still can't accept the 2016 election results and the fact that Hillary simply LOST and are the same snowflakes who now can't accept Mueller's report, that he was unable to PROVE GUILT (aka 'Innocent') and not one single indictment or conviction of his was for collusion or obstruction.

The only thing that will resolve this once and for all is for Barr and the DOJ to open up a REAL investigation of Hillary and indict her for her obvious crimes, is for Barr to investigate the crimes and treason perpetrated by Obama Dem Agency Directors and members and perp-walk them into prison, is for Barr and the DOJ to perp-walk self-admitted classified leaker Schiff out of the House in shackled / handcuffs...is to show the criminals THERE IS A PRICE TO PAY FOR SUCH CRIMES AND EVEN THEY WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

Sending these elitist 'untouchable' criminal traitors to jail is the only way to ensure it never happens again. (FBI Director Mueller was brought before a secret FISA Court to explain 75 incidents of FBI FISA Court Abuses - he NEVER held anyone accountable....and they continued. Comey needs to 'burn' / be indicted...with Rosenstein. (Meanwhile Wray should be dragged in front of the US AG to explain why the FBI is illegally engaging in NON-compliance with FOIA requests...simply because the information is extremely embarrassing for the FBI!)

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I see Stormy Daniels high tailed it out of here when I destroyed his/her/xir silly talking point on indictments.

Actually, you have yet to say anything on topic. You keep repeating the same rant that fails to answer the original question. How does any of these things Mueller is saying amount to an exoneration?

 

[iceberg]

I see Stormy Daniels high tailed it out of here when I destroyed his/her/xir silly talking point on indictments.

Actually, you have yet to say anything on topic. You keep repeating the same rant that fails to answer the original question. How does any of these things Mueller is saying amount to an exoneration?

and you have yet to answer - how does any of it PROVE he's guilty of something?

you really hate counter questions, don't you?

 

[iceberg]

I see Stormy Daniels high tailed it out of here when I destroyed his/her/xir silly talking point on indictments.

she ignores my "on point" replies to her questions cause she can't answer questions she's busy asking. instead she just does a minor league attack and tries to ignore me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I see Stormy Daniels high tailed it out of here when I destroyed his/her/xir silly talking point on indictments.

Actually, you have yet to say anything on topic. You keep repeating the same rant that fails to answer the original question. How does any of these things Mueller is saying amount to an exoneration?

Now Comrade, you were so invested in page 213, since your hate site talking points told you it served the delusion that somehow this report is favorable to you Stalinists.

But in usual fashion you FAILED to address the points...

I get it, you repeat talking points from ThinkProgress, no one ever told you that you had to actually think...

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

What does that mean, Comrade? Could you not raise anyone at the hate sites to give you a new talking point?

Did Torquemada initiate? If not, what was his only other option? (binary decision?)

Can you say "exonerate," comrade?

So then we have this turd from the corrupt ****;

we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment

What? The ****** says he's just going to violate the law? Really?

You think that's how it should go Comrade? Can't find anything legal, so **** the law and proceed anyway?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Because Mueller couldn't find any collusion or obstruction

 

[captkaos]

I can't.


(I have NO idea what an 'exhoneration' is.)

This would be considered an off topic trolling post if made by anyone else.

The idea was to get a change made to the thread title.

it seems to have worked.

The idea is that you have nothing relevant to say, other than to nitpick a simple spelling error.

So St"O"rmy you didn't give the guy a BJ. But your husband had condoms in the glove box. You tell the cops they are not yours but they charge you with obstruction of justice for lying about not owning the condoms. So you are exonerated for the BJ but still face obstruction for denying the crime occurred. See how stupid you sound! The crime didn't occur so there can be no obstruction. Retard!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I see Stormy Daniels high tailed it out of here when I destroyed his/her/xir silly talking point on indictments.

Actually, you have yet to say anything on topic. You keep repeating the same rant that fails to answer the original question. How does any of these things Mueller is saying amount to an exoneration?

and you have yet to answer - how does any of it PROVE he's guilty of something?

you really hate counter questions, don't you?

Prove?

Torquemada already proved that he has no evidence of any crime.

In Vol. 2, he deals with innuendo, slander, and libel. Torquemada even highlights that what he is engaged in is unethical and violated Justice standards.

The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
constitutes a federal offense. U.S. Dept of Justice, Justice Manual 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name?clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

You see the prostitute Stormy Daniels has not actually read the report and is really just spewing talking points from the hate sites, desperately grasping for anything that refutes my actual citations of the report.

 

[iceberg]

I see Stormy Daniels high tailed it out of here when I destroyed his/her/xir silly talking point on indictments.

Actually, you have yet to say anything on topic. You keep repeating the same rant that fails to answer the original question. How does any of these things Mueller is saying amount to an exoneration?

and you have yet to answer - how does any of it PROVE he's guilty of something?

you really hate counter questions, don't you?

Prove?

Torquemada already proved that he has no evidence of any crime.

In Vol. 2, he deals with innuendo, slander, and libel. Torquemada even highlights that what he is engaged in is unethical and violated Justice standards.

The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
constitutes a federal offense. U.S. Dept of Justice, Justice Manual 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name?clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

You see the prostitute Stormy Daniels has not actually read the report and is really just spewing talking points from the hate sites, desperately grasping for anything that refutes my actual citations of the report.

and i'm using her own questions against her and she's totally ignoring me.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

A sitting president cannot be indicted, dope.

Therefore, there is no "traditional prosecution or declination decision" to be made.

The fact that there was not a declination decision made is in and of itself evidence that the investigators did indeed find evidence of criminality.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

LOL....
Only a true moron would argue over what a report says without having read it. Good job....

 

[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.

stupid people do miss the obvious.

move along now son.

Still can't hear you. Speak up, boy!

 

[Markle]

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...

NO COLLUSION!

'nuff said!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

“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!

Actually, it's a very fundamental concept in the study of logic, dating back to ancient Greece. Too bad you aren't better educated.

Your quote is incorrect in your usage. You are 180 degrees out from its meaning. I suggest you look it up and find your error, dumbass!

I apparently had more education that you when I moved from junior high to high school.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Try reading your Constitution dumbass!

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Try reading your Constitution dumbass!

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law."

Yes......Apparently......

 

[easyt65]

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.

A sitting president cannot be indicted, dope.

Therefore, there is no "traditional prosecution or declination decision" to be made.

The fact that there was not a declination decision made is in and of itself evidence that the investigators did indeed find evidence of criminality.

For get prosecution - you need evidence 1st. Mueller had none...not without that 'THOUGHT CRIMES' Bill the Democrats passed.