Explain how this is an exoneration

[Stormy Daniels]

“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.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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

Are you saying that Mueller had the authority and legal power to indict Donald?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[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.

But 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.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Link...

I just gave you the citation. Page 1 of volume II of the report; page 213 of the PDF copies combining the two. If you can't be bothered to do a google search to download the report, then you just don't want to read it

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

Mueller's report outlines 10 instances of obstruction by Donald.

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.

Good story. Seeing as nobody said anything about thinking being a crime, your statement is red herring. Ordering Mueller to be fired is not a thought, it is a behavior. Instructing people to lie to the Special Council is not a thought, it is a behavior.

 

[boedicca]

This is reasonable and spot on accurate. Put down the solo cup, TDS cultists.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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

So what you're saying is that Mueller's report is an exoneration because you just don't care. Which is pretty much the most honest thing I've seen in this thread so far. Not one single person can give a straight answer as to how Mueller's decision making summary, which I've restated in the OP, is an exoneration.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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

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.

 

[iceberg]

...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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

just listen to how stupid we've become

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

so - what are you still chasing then? something he missed in 2+ years of looking?

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

...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.

LOL...
It's been explained many times. Even a cursory reading of the report would enlighten your understanding of any wrongdoing by the president. You certainly could not conclude that "trump did nothing wrong". It's only your refusal to do so that keeps you confounded.

 

[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.

 

[iceberg]

...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.

 

[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.