Explain how this is an exoneration

[Indeependent]

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.)

Post the pages and paragraphs.

LOL Grt off your fat ass and READ.....COMPREHEND....LEARN

The Emancipation Proclamation | National Archives

400 pages...
Post the pages and paragraphs.

 

[nat4900]

He couldn't be nailed for obstruction and, again, he turned over about 1 million documents. He made himself available.

LOL

Trump lashes out at aides who cooperated with Mueller

 

[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?

 

[easyt65]

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?

1. Mueller did not base his investigation on this. ZERO evidence of collusion, & ZERO evidence to prove obstruction occurred. Embarassing details but nothing criminal.

2. A LIE. Zero evidence of a crime in living Trump - there was NWVWR any evidence of such a crime. Mueller spelled this out.

3. A trial is only warranted if there is a crime and if there is evidence against the one you want to bring to trial. There never was any. NEVER.

4. The results of the investigation do not warrant the SC declaring Obstruction occurred. It did NOT...

...unless snowflakes can post that link to the Democrata' 'THOUGHT CRIMES BILL' they passed....

Good god...another 3 years of denial....just like Gore and the chads....just like the 2016 election.

You f*ers lost.
The exposed coup failed.
No evidence.
No crime.
No collusion.
No obstruction.
No indictment for either.
No conviction for either.
Enough of your treasonous criminal defending butt-hurt!

 

[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'

 

[WEATHER53]

You all have become so addled that even innocent is no longer good enough for you. You want someone to declare ”I think you did not do it”.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

The sentence starting “still others deleted...” is a crock of shit piece of sci-fi to anyone who works in IT.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

No doubt, every time Trump changes his underwear you're thinking obstruction / conspiracy.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

 

[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!

 

[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.

No doubt, every time Trump changes his underwear you're thinking obstruction / conspiracy.

Ten instances of obstruction. More than just changing underwear.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

No doubt, every time Trump changes his underwear you're thinking obstruction / conspiracy.

Ten instances of obstruction. More than just changing underwear.

Opinion piece...kewl.

 

[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.

No doubt, every time Trump changes his underwear you're thinking obstruction / conspiracy.

Ten instances of obstruction. More than just changing underwear.

Opinion piece...kewl.

This is an objective analysis. It take each of the act, nexus and intent and refers to the page in mueller's report which applies to each act, nexus and intent.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

No doubt, every time Trump changes his underwear you're thinking obstruction / conspiracy.

Ten instances of obstruction. More than just changing underwear.

Opinion piece...kewl.

This is an objective analysis. It take each of the act, nexus and intent and refers to the page in mueller's report which applies to each act, nexus and intent.

Which neither you nor I will take the lengthy amount of time out of our lives to research.

 

[Oddball]

You do not go to prison for not committing a crime. There was no conspiracy found. And because there was no conspiracy found it is impossible to obstruct justice.

Haven't yet found the time to read the report? See Mueller Report, Vol. II, p157:

Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g., United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that “obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime”). 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. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events—such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’s release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians—could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.

Third, many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view. While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President’s power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system’s integrity is equally threatened.​

Filed under "speculation"....Not admissible in any court for something like the last eight centuries or so.

GTFO, Eurotrash thug.

 

[Markle]

This is an objective analysis. It take each of the act, nexus and intent and refers to the page in mueller's report which applies to each act, nexus and intent.

NO COLLUSION!

 

[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.