Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

[jc456]

Now you're just another liar on the internet

Now you're just another liar on the internet

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

funny shit dude. what was the crime? is there any open indictments or sealed ones? without that, the pres is exonerated. It doesn't matter what the report says beyond that.

Name the crime.

LOL...

Look at you claiming something that the report explicitly says is not the case.

I suggest you read what I posted several more times. I know there are a lot of big words but I'm confident you can do it, little buddy.

name the crime. why did you avoid telling us the crime? why?

And I don't need the report to tell me trump was exonerated, the lack of a crime tells me that.

name the crime. why did you avoid telling us the crime? why?

And I don't need the report to tell me trump was exonerated, the lack of a crime tells me that.

It's ironic that you're asking such a dopey question about the report in a thread about how none of you dopes have read the report.
Too funny.

Volume 2 covers obstruction.

The report says very clearly that he was not exonerated, dope.

what part of the report indicted trump? without an indictment, no crime has been identified, if no crime has been found, then trump is exonerated. I'm still waiting on the crime twoface?

The purpose of a prosecutor is to indict. derp

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...
That applies to clearing the president dope.

You are not competent in your representation of the report.

Now you're just another liar on the internet

Now you're just another liar on the internet

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

In other words, based on the facts and laws in place they can't charge him with anything, but maybe something else, if we go on another witch hunt.

IOW, he did indeed commit obstruction but we can't officially say that.

LOL...
That applies to clearing the president dope.

You are not competent in your representation of the report.

Now you're just another liar on the internet

Now you're just another liar on the internet

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

In other words, based on the facts and laws in place they can't charge him with anything, but maybe something else, if we go on another witch hunt.

IOW, he did indeed commit obstruction but we can't officially say that.

Because of "'difficult issues' of law and fact" about whether Trump's actions and intent could amount to obstruction.

Yes. A sitting president cannot be indicted. Therefore he cannot be accused either.

Just as I said.

 

[jc456]

Now you're just another liar on the internet

Now you're just another liar on the internet

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

In other words, based on the facts and laws in place they can't charge him with anything, but maybe something else, if we go on another witch hunt.

IOW, he did indeed commit obstruction but we can't officially say that.

Now you're just another liar on the internet

Now you're just another liar on the internet

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

In other words, based on the facts and laws in place they can't charge him with anything, but maybe something else, if we go on another witch hunt.

IOW, he did indeed commit obstruction but we can't officially say that.

Because of "'difficult issues' of law and fact" about whether Trump's actions and intent could amount to obstruction.

Yes. A sitting president cannot be indicted. Therefore he cannot be accused either.

Jus as I said.

sure he can, it's called a sealed indictment. fk, how many times in here do I have to tell you all that. It is the purpose of the sealed indictment.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

funny shit dude. what was the crime? is there any open indictments or sealed ones? without that, the pres is exonerated. It doesn't matter what the report says beyond that.

Name the crime.

LOL...

Look at you claiming something that the report explicitly says is not the case.

I suggest you read what I posted several more times. I know there are a lot of big words but I'm confident you can do it, little buddy.

Hacks are hacks kid, it says what it says

Yes you are indeed.
Only a true hack could respond to a post with an exerpt of Mueller report that says Trump was not exonerated by saying he was exonerated. Truly dopey.

Son you are not very intelligent. Does the report say they could not establish that crimes had been committed? You are quite stupid.

Yes it does, dope. They couldn't establish that because a sitting president cannot be indicted, dope.

They said if they could have cleared him they would have. They could not.
They also said that while they could not say if Trump committed obstruction, they did not exonerate him either.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Its painfully obvious from all the stupid shit they say .

Hey, no one is asking to read the whole 400 page thing. How about the 18 page summary from the man himself . Perhaps you can have some elementary students read it to you !

Really . Fed up . Who’s read the thing ?

https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/05/Mueller-Summaries.pdf

This thread didn’t age well.

 

[jc456]

funny shit dude. what was the crime? is there any open indictments or sealed ones? without that, the pres is exonerated. It doesn't matter what the report says beyond that.

Name the crime.

LOL...

Look at you claiming something that the report explicitly says is not the case.

I suggest you read what I posted several more times. I know there are a lot of big words but I'm confident you can do it, little buddy.

Hacks are hacks kid, it says what it says

Yes you are indeed.
Only a true hack could respond to a post with an exerpt of Mueller report that says Trump was not exonerated by saying he was exonerated. Truly dopey.

Son you are not very intelligent. Does the report say they could not establish that crimes had been committed? You are quite stupid.

Yes it does, dope. They couldn't establish that because a sitting president cannot be indicted, dope.

They said if they could have cleared him they would have. They could not.
They also said that while they could not say if Trump committed obstruction, they did not exonerate him either.

simply stupid. as I just posted in another post, all mueller had to do was seal an indictment. that's it. It was available to him. he chose not to, = exonerated bitch!!!!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

funny shit dude. what was the crime? is there any open indictments or sealed ones? without that, the pres is exonerated. It doesn't matter what the report says beyond that.

Name the crime.

LOL...

Look at you claiming something that the report explicitly says is not the case.

I suggest you read what I posted several more times. I know there are a lot of big words but I'm confident you can do it, little buddy.

name the crime. why did you avoid telling us the crime? why?

And I don't need the report to tell me trump was exonerated, the lack of a crime tells me that.

name the crime. why did you avoid telling us the crime? why?

And I don't need the report to tell me trump was exonerated, the lack of a crime tells me that.

It's ironic that you're asking such a dopey question about the report in a thread about how none of you dopes have read the report.
Too funny.

Volume 2 covers obstruction.

The report says very clearly that he was not exonerated, dope.

no it doesn't. that's false. I'm still waitingon the crime. What was the crime that he committed that he's not exonerated from? come on, man up!!!

LOL...

It's right in front of you , dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...
That applies to clearing the president dope.

You are not competent in your representation of the report.

Now you're just another liar on the internet

Now you're just another liar on the internet

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

funny shit dude. what was the crime? is there any open indictments or sealed ones? without that, the pres is exonerated. It doesn't matter what the report says beyond that.

Name the crime.

LOL...

Look at you claiming something that the report explicitly says is not the case.

I suggest you read what I posted several more times. I know there are a lot of big words but I'm confident you can do it, little buddy.

Hacks are hacks kid, it says what it says

Yes you are, dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

 

[jc456]

Now you're just another liar on the internet

Now you're just another liar on the internet

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

funny shit dude. what was the crime? is there any open indictments or sealed ones? without that, the pres is exonerated. It doesn't matter what the report says beyond that.

Name the crime.

LOL...

Look at you claiming something that the report explicitly says is not the case.

I suggest you read what I posted several more times. I know there are a lot of big words but I'm confident you can do it, little buddy.

Hacks are hacks kid, it says what it says

Yes you are, dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

sure it does. what is it that can happen? come on dig in now.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

funny shit dude. what was the crime? is there any open indictments or sealed ones? without that, the pres is exonerated. It doesn't matter what the report says beyond that.

Name the crime.

LOL...

Look at you claiming something that the report explicitly says is not the case.

I suggest you read what I posted several more times. I know there are a lot of big words but I'm confident you can do it, little buddy.

name the crime. why did you avoid telling us the crime? why?

And I don't need the report to tell me trump was exonerated, the lack of a crime tells me that.

name the crime. why did you avoid telling us the crime? why?

And I don't need the report to tell me trump was exonerated, the lack of a crime tells me that.

It's ironic that you're asking such a dopey question about the report in a thread about how none of you dopes have read the report.
Too funny.

Volume 2 covers obstruction.

The report says very clearly that he was not exonerated, dope.

what part of the report indicted trump? without an indictment, no crime has been identified, if no crime has been found, then trump is exonerated. I'm still waiting on the crime twoface?

The purpose of a prosecutor is to indict. derp

A president cannot be indicted, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...

Look at you claiming something that the report explicitly says is not the case.

I suggest you read what I posted several more times. I know there are a lot of big words but I'm confident you can do it, little buddy.

Hacks are hacks kid, it says what it says

Yes you are indeed.
Only a true hack could respond to a post with an exerpt of Mueller report that says Trump was not exonerated by saying he was exonerated. Truly dopey.

Son you are not very intelligent. Does the report say they could not establish that crimes had been committed? You are quite stupid.

Yes it does, dope. They couldn't establish that because a sitting president cannot be indicted, dope.

They said if they could have cleared him they would have. They could not.
They also said that while they could not say if Trump committed obstruction, they did not exonerate him either.

simply stupid. as I just posted in another post, all mueller had to do was seal an indictment. that's it. It was available to him. he chose not to, = exonerated bitch!!!!

Derp....


"it also does not exonerate him."

 

[jc456]

funny shit dude. what was the crime? is there any open indictments or sealed ones? without that, the pres is exonerated. It doesn't matter what the report says beyond that.

Name the crime.

LOL...

Look at you claiming something that the report explicitly says is not the case.

I suggest you read what I posted several more times. I know there are a lot of big words but I'm confident you can do it, little buddy.

name the crime. why did you avoid telling us the crime? why?

And I don't need the report to tell me trump was exonerated, the lack of a crime tells me that.

name the crime. why did you avoid telling us the crime? why?

And I don't need the report to tell me trump was exonerated, the lack of a crime tells me that.

It's ironic that you're asking such a dopey question about the report in a thread about how none of you dopes have read the report.
Too funny.

Volume 2 covers obstruction.

The report says very clearly that he was not exonerated, dope.

what part of the report indicted trump? without an indictment, no crime has been identified, if no crime has been found, then trump is exonerated. I'm still waiting on the crime twoface?

The purpose of a prosecutor is to indict. derp

A president cannot be indicted, dope.

it's called a sealed indictment for that purpose stupid fk.

 

[jc456]

Hacks are hacks kid, it says what it says

Yes you are indeed.
Only a true hack could respond to a post with an exerpt of Mueller report that says Trump was not exonerated by saying he was exonerated. Truly dopey.

Son you are not very intelligent. Does the report say they could not establish that crimes had been committed? You are quite stupid.

Yes it does, dope. They couldn't establish that because a sitting president cannot be indicted, dope.

They said if they could have cleared him they would have. They could not.
They also said that while they could not say if Trump committed obstruction, they did not exonerate him either.

simply stupid. as I just posted in another post, all mueller had to do was seal an indictment. that's it. It was available to him. he chose not to, = exonerated bitch!!!!

Derp....


"it also does not exonerate him."

sure it does, what is it you can do about it? no crime, no punishment, exonerated. it's simple dude. you keep

 

[Hutch Starskey]

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

In other words, based on the facts and laws in place they can't charge him with anything, but maybe something else, if we go on another witch hunt.

IOW, he did indeed commit obstruction but we can't officially say that.

For the above posters.....both of whom obviously have not read the report.
Derp....

Vol.2, page 8
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

In other words, based on the facts and laws in place they can't charge him with anything, but maybe something else, if we go on another witch hunt.

IOW, he did indeed commit obstruction but we can't officially say that.

Because of "'difficult issues' of law and fact" about whether Trump's actions and intent could amount to obstruction.

Yes. A sitting president cannot be indicted. Therefore he cannot be accused either.

Jus as I said.

sure he can, it's called a sealed indictment. fk, how many times in here do I have to tell you all that. It is the purpose of the sealed indictment.

You're telling me nothing.

 

[jc456]

In other words, based on the facts and laws in place they can't charge him with anything, but maybe something else, if we go on another witch hunt.

IOW, he did indeed commit obstruction but we can't officially say that.

In other words, based on the facts and laws in place they can't charge him with anything, but maybe something else, if we go on another witch hunt.

IOW, he did indeed commit obstruction but we can't officially say that.

Because of "'difficult issues' of law and fact" about whether Trump's actions and intent could amount to obstruction.

Yes. A sitting president cannot be indicted. Therefore he cannot be accused either.

Jus as I said.

sure he can, it's called a sealed indictment. fk, how many times in here do I have to tell you all that. It is the purpose of the sealed indictment.

You're telling me nothing.

cause I told you everything

 

[Meister]

Why don't the democrats with the proper clearance go into the room and read the 98.5%
of the un-redacted report?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes you are indeed.
Only a true hack could respond to a post with an exerpt of Mueller report that says Trump was not exonerated by saying he was exonerated. Truly dopey.

Son you are not very intelligent. Does the report say they could not establish that crimes had been committed? You are quite stupid.

Yes it does, dope. They couldn't establish that because a sitting president cannot be indicted, dope.

They said if they could have cleared him they would have. They could not.
They also said that while they could not say if Trump committed obstruction, they did not exonerate him either.

simply stupid. as I just posted in another post, all mueller had to do was seal an indictment. that's it. It was available to him. he chose not to, = exonerated bitch!!!!

Derp....


"it also does not exonerate him."

sure it does, what is it you can do about it? no crime, no punishment, exonerated. it's simple dude. you keep

The report says this ,dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

IOW, he did indeed commit obstruction but we can't officially say that.

IOW, he did indeed commit obstruction but we can't officially say that.

Because of "'difficult issues' of law and fact" about whether Trump's actions and intent could amount to obstruction.

Yes. A sitting president cannot be indicted. Therefore he cannot be accused either.

Jus as I said.

sure he can, it's called a sealed indictment. fk, how many times in here do I have to tell you all that. It is the purpose of the sealed indictment.

You're telling me nothing.

cause I told you everything

Everything except what the report says, dope. Your bullshit theories are meaningless.

 

[jc456]

Son you are not very intelligent. Does the report say they could not establish that crimes had been committed? You are quite stupid.

Yes it does, dope. They couldn't establish that because a sitting president cannot be indicted, dope.

They said if they could have cleared him they would have. They could not.
They also said that while they could not say if Trump committed obstruction, they did not exonerate him either.

simply stupid. as I just posted in another post, all mueller had to do was seal an indictment. that's it. It was available to him. he chose not to, = exonerated bitch!!!!

Derp....


"it also does not exonerate him."

sure it does, what is it you can do about it? no crime, no punishment, exonerated. it's simple dude. you keep

The report says this ,dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

 

[jc456]

Because of "'difficult issues' of law and fact" about whether Trump's actions and intent could amount to obstruction.

Yes. A sitting president cannot be indicted. Therefore he cannot be accused either.

Jus as I said.

sure he can, it's called a sealed indictment. fk, how many times in here do I have to tell you all that. It is the purpose of the sealed indictment.

You're telling me nothing.

cause I told you everything

Everything except what the report says, dope. Your bullshit theories are meaningless.

no indictments to act on nor any sealed. = exonerated. I'm waiting for you to tell what the other option is? what is it if it isn't exoneration? come on step out of the hole.