Explain how this is an exoneration

[Indeependent]

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?

When did you receive your law degree and in what area of law do you specialize?

 

[WEATHER53]

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?

When did you receive your law degree and in what area of law do you specialize?

Never and None
If, buts, beer, nuts is all their fishing trip Witch Hunt is about

 

[Markle]

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 COLLUSION!

Volume one, page two

Redacted Mueller Report

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

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

 

[WEATHER53]

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 COLLUSION!

Volume one, page two

Redacted Mueller Report

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

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

It’s a feelings thing

 

[Clipper]

No crime; therefore, no obstruction.

Trump could have been nailed for obstructing the investigation into his possibly conspiring with Russia, idiot. What the fuck are you talking about?

Here's to hoping Congress nails his sorry ass on both impeachable offenses. If not there's the SDNY investigations. Your boy will be wiping the sweat off his balls for a long time to come. Gee, that's a shame.

 

[bripat9643]

No crime; therefore, no obstruction.

Trump could have been nailed for obstructing the investigation into his possibly conspiring with Russia, idiot. What the fuck are you talking about?

Here's to hoping Congress nails his sorry ass on both impeachable offenses. If not there's the SDNY investigations. Your boy will be wiping the sweat off his balls for a long time to come. Gee, that's a shame.

He didn't conspire with Russia, and he didn't obstruct the investigation into this bogus crime.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Key point,[/SIZE][/B] there is NO crime, this was an illegal fishing expedition from the start.

After "emitting" that "key point" make sure you flush and wash your hands......LOL

Go find a corner to pout in, toddler.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Rommel thought Hitler was a moron and tried to assassinate him.

Asshole........Rommel turned on Hitler AFTER the Nazi fuck up in Russia......

If you weren't such an ignorant idiot you'd know that Rommel "loved" Hitler until 1941.....

Please don't be such a Trump ass kisser by flaunting your ignorance.

Not even close to true, fuckwad.

Rommel was career military.

Do you EVER post anything accurate?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Rommel thought Hitler was a moron and tried to assassinate him.

Asshole........Rommel turned on Hitler AFTER the Nazi fuck up in Russia......

If you weren't such an ignorant idiot you'd know that Rommel "loved" Hitler until 1941.....

Please don't be such a Trump ass kisser by flaunting your ignorance.

Don’t know much about any history I see.

Nah, he just lies.

Facts have no meaning to gnat.

 

[DJT for Life]

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.​

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.

 

[Disir]

No crime; therefore, no obstruction.

Trump could have been nailed for obstructing the investigation into his possibly conspiring with Russia, idiot. What the fuck are you talking about?

Here's to hoping Congress nails his sorry ass on both impeachable offenses. If not there's the SDNY investigations. Your boy will be wiping the sweat off his balls for a long time to come. Gee, that's a shame.

He couldn't be nailed for obstruction and, again, he turned over about 1 million documents. He made himself available. There was no crime.

He isn't my boy, hon. I didn't vote for him.

 

[Markle]

The above dimwit INSISTS to be labeled a dimwit.....

The investigation's objective was SPECIFICALLY to determine if there existed "obstruction of justice"......and the above moron states that the investigation was NOT a "criminal" one???.........GO FIGURE THE UTTER STUPIDITY.

Normally I make it a point to ignore your childish, desperate behavior. I chalk it up to you being a fool. But when you childishly call people names because you cannot admit you are wrong and proceed to LIE, which is often, sometimes I break my own rule.

You LIED when you said, and I quote, "The investigation's objective was SPECIFICALLY to determine if there existed "obstruction of justice"...." As you know, that is not true which, someone could just say was an error, but the worst part is you know it to be false, in other words, a lie.

Someone would either be lying or suffering from UTTER STUPIDITY" to not know and freely state the real purpose.

Allow me to refresh your "memory".

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.



Read more: What is Mueller investigating?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The PURPOSE, as you can clearly see, is whether or not COLLUSION occurred and NOT whether or not there was obstruction of justice. How can there be obstruction of justice when there was clearly NO COLLUSION?

So, why lie?

 

[toobfreak]

No crime; therefore, no obstruction.

"Brilliant".....just damn "brilliant"........

And yet, I read here ALL THE TIME the reasoning that Hillary has been investigated 40 times over 25 years and still has never been charged with a thing! You can overlook and rationalize all of that, but can't get past Mueller's one investigation which did not find Trump guilty of a single thing.

Yet I bet if you found apples missing from your table then found one in the coat pocket of a neighbor boy each time, you'd damn well suspect him!

The only facts that matter:

1. Mueller found no truth or connections to the accusation that Trump had conspired with Russia.
2. Mueller found political malfeasance in some of the things Trump tried to do, but they did not rise to the level of a crime.

Trump will NEVER be charged with impeachment much less impeached.

Some few idiots may wish to try Trump for "crimes" as a private citizen when he's out of office, but I don't think they will go very far.

 

[WEATHER53]

The above dimwit INSISTS to be labeled a dimwit.....

The investigation's objective was SPECIFICALLY to determine if there existed "obstruction of justice"......and the above moron states that the investigation was NOT a "criminal" one???.........GO FIGURE THE UTTER STUPIDITY.

Normally I make it a point to ignore your childish, desperate behavior. I chalk it up to you being a fool. But when you childishly call people names because you cannot admit you are wrong and proceed to LIE, which is often, sometimes I break my own rule.

You LIED when you said, and I quote, "The investigation's objective was SPECIFICALLY to determine if there existed "obstruction of justice"...." As you know, that is not true which, someone could just say was an error, but the worst part is you know it to be false, in other words, a lie.

Someone would either be lying or suffering from UTTER STUPIDITY" to not know and freely state the real purpose.

Allow me to refresh your "memory".

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.



Read more: What is Mueller investigating?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The PURPOSE, as you can clearly see, is whether or not COLLUSION occurred and NOT whether or not there was obstruction of justice. How can there be obstruction of justice when there was clearly NO COLLUSION?

So, why lie?

Feelings can’t defeat facts so lie instead.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[nat4900]

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.)

 

[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.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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?

Well it kinda says so in the laws you quoted.

 

[nat4900]

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