"this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate"

[deanrd]

What does “does not exonerate” mean?

 

[BlindBoo]

She is a criminal.

LOL.

"The law states innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

When was she convicted again?

Did they put her in that fucking cell and not tell us about it? Damn those Mutherfockers!

not necessarily. one can be a criminal and never have been prosecuted. criminal behavior implies criminal. sorry bout that. Who do cops arrest?

Nope, according to Airplanewrench, she would be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Cops arrest suspects.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

...

I highly doubt the DNC believes "they can nail Trump" .. that's not the point of the exercise.

The point of the exercise is to cherry pick quotations from the full report and use them to convince the masses of mindless, attention deficit disorder sheeple (aka voters) that while the report didn't implicate Donny in any wrongdoing that he's guilty as sin anyways, in other words due to a "whitwash"/"cover up"/"pay off"/<fill in the blank malfeasance> Donny got away with "collusion" and obstruction.

It's a political thing, not a reason and evidence thing.

Exactly. It's what the GOP does as well.

Yep... they both do it.

We need to hold both sides accountable for cherry picking detail and using those to paint a broad but false narrative or conclusion.

How can you hold them accountable when it's what "The People" clearly want? The American Public at large wants sound bytes and headlines that feed its confirmation bias, we don't want objective analysis and nuance, that takes time and effort to digest.

The chattering classes are just giving us what we say we want.... INFOTAINMENT.

ABSOLUTELY!


I premised this thread on a discussion of the summary of Mueller's report, only for those who would actually read the summary to comment on it.

I believe that, as a rough estimate, 20% of the folks that have commented in the thread so far, STILL have not read the link. It is only four pages.

Hell, half the first page is addresses, and the last page is only half a page. It's not really four pages, maybe three and a third? My OP is probably more boring. And yet, for those who fancy themselves political aficionados, they can't be bothered?

I premised this thread on a discussion of the summary of Mueller's report, only for those who would actually read the summary to comment on it.

It is not a summary of the Mueller report. It's two bullet points presented with zero context from the actual report.

AND?

DO YOU HAVE A POINT?

Of course. It's not surprising that you missed it or are afraid to address it.
You called a summary. It's not. Barr quotes exactly two sentences from the actual Mueller report.

 

[jc456]

Agreed.

Mueller said...“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Well this statement does appear contradictory.

IMHO It's not contradictory at all …

It means insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion of the commission of a crime and no (or insufficient) exculpatory evidence to justify exoneration.

so one would need to know the intent of the investigation. What was the intent of mueller's objectives as outlined by the Assistant AG? it was to determine if trump or his campaign colluded with the russians in 2016. If the man found no evidence of such a thing, that in itself is exoneration. he couldn't prove the objective. the abject failure to do that exonerates the man and his campaign.

I don't care at all what else is in the 1000 page report.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It’s pretty clear that

A. Barr is covering Trump’s voluminous ass. He was hired FOR that job

B. Mueller in making no determination of guilt was presenting the evidence to Congress for THEM to decide.

DOJ guidelines say that a sitting President can not be indicted. That means that whatever evidence Mueller found NEEDS to be presented to Congress. Not to Bill Barr

Concerning WHAT though?

THIS IS KEY.

I have seen you, yes YOU, still make snide comments about Trump and Putin, mostly b/c you have not read this report or do not understand it's implications.

OR;

You are just a liar.

It's not a report. It's a memo. The AG quotes just two sentences from the Mueller report that may be hundreds if not thousands of pages. It in no way is anything other than an interpretation of two points made in a much lager report.

however, if there are no indictments to act on, then there is no crime mentioned in the report. yes, we can deduce that piece. no crime was found. Need nothing else after that. anything else is just people with a bug or two up their asses spewing nonsense.

Not true in any way. It says quite clearly there was no exoneration, dope.

 

[jc456]

She is a criminal.

LOL.

"The law states innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

When was she convicted again?

Did they put her in that fucking cell and not tell us about it? Damn those Mutherfockers!

not necessarily. one can be a criminal and never have been prosecuted. criminal behavior implies criminal. sorry bout that. Who do cops arrest?

Nope, according to Airplanewrench, she would be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Cops arrest suspects.

but comey told the world she committed a crime. she just didn't have intent. hahahahaahahahaha

 

[gipper]

Agreed.

Mueller said...“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Well this statement does appear contradictory.

IMHO It's not contradictory at all …

It means insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion of the commission of a crime and no (or insufficient) exculpatory evidence to justify exoneration.

That is one way to look at it. However, the MSM and many Dems made it clear that collusion was evident. After all the witnesses, 2.5 years of investigation, and millions spent, exoneration would appear a fair conclusion.

 

[jc456]

It’s pretty clear that

A. Barr is covering Trump’s voluminous ass. He was hired FOR that job

B. Mueller in making no determination of guilt was presenting the evidence to Congress for THEM to decide.

DOJ guidelines say that a sitting President can not be indicted. That means that whatever evidence Mueller found NEEDS to be presented to Congress. Not to Bill Barr

Concerning WHAT though?

THIS IS KEY.

I have seen you, yes YOU, still make snide comments about Trump and Putin, mostly b/c you have not read this report or do not understand it's implications.

OR;

You are just a liar.

It's not a report. It's a memo. The AG quotes just two sentences from the Mueller report that may be hundreds if not thousands of pages. It in no way is anything other than an interpretation of two points made in a much lager report.

however, if there are no indictments to act on, then there is no crime mentioned in the report. yes, we can deduce that piece. no crime was found. Need nothing else after that. anything else is just people with a bug or two up their asses spewing nonsense.

Not true in any way. It says quite clearly there was no exhoneration, dope.

did his report state he achieved his objective of finding collusion between trump or his campaign? no! exonerated friend. there is nothing else. No indictment, no crime. nothing. exoneration!!! you're just spewing nonsense. I don't need him to tell me he didn't exonerate him, the lack of a finding tells me that.

 

[jc456]

Agreed.

Mueller said...“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Well this statement does appear contradictory.

IMHO It's not contradictory at all …

It means insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion of the commission of a crime and no (or insufficient) exculpatory evidence to justify exoneration.

That is one way to look at it. However, the MSM and many Dems made it clear that collusion was evident. After all the witnesses, 2.5 years of investigation, and millions spent, exoneration would appear a fair conclusion.

correct. no finding automatically means exoneration.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The full report needs to be issued for all Americans to read.

 

[BlindBoo]

She is a criminal.

LOL.

"The law states innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

When was she convicted again?

Did they put her in that fucking cell and not tell us about it? Damn those Mutherfockers!

not necessarily. one can be a criminal and never have been prosecuted. criminal behavior implies criminal. sorry bout that. Who do cops arrest?

Nope, according to Airplanewrench, she would be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Cops arrest suspects.

but comey told the world she committed a crime. she just didn't have intent. hahahahaahahahaha

Sorry but Comey is neither a judge nor jury making Clinton just as exonerated as Trump is. (Which of course in the partisans mind is not at all!)

 

[hadit]

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this?

I don't think the debate is over. I think it will last until the next federal election. Hopefully it will fade to the background but another Fauxrageous fight is just around the corner. I'm sure something new will take center stage for while, with the whole Russian/Obstruction thing popping up from time to time.

Why don't you think the debate over Russian collusion is over?

LOL.....

Just because sufficient evidence to indict was not found doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don jr. certainly was ready and eager to take a meeting predicated on the offer of Russian assistance and then lie to cover it up.

Impeachment certainly has no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that a criminal prosecution would.

I had to chuckle about this. Let's try this on for size.

Just because sufficient evidence to indict was not find didn't mean it didn't happen. Hillary certainly was ready and eager to destroy her server and thousands of emails, then claim ignorance to cover it up. Being denied the presidency certainly has no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that a criminal prosecution would.

 

[jc456]

She is a criminal.

LOL.

"The law states innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

When was she convicted again?

Did they put her in that fucking cell and not tell us about it? Damn those Mutherfockers!

not necessarily. one can be a criminal and never have been prosecuted. criminal behavior implies criminal. sorry bout that. Who do cops arrest?

Nope, according to Airplanewrench, she would be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Cops arrest suspects.

but comey told the world she committed a crime. she just didn't have intent. hahahahaahahahaha

Sorry but Comey is neither a judge nor jury making Clinton just as exonerated as Trump is. (Which of course in the partisans mind is not at all!)

sure he was. how come she didn't go in front of grand jury then? Comey had no authority to claim intent. only a grand jury does that.

 

[gipper]

What does “does not exonerate” mean?

Yeah it is bull shit. Mueller's report DOES exonerate Donnie.

 

[BlindBoo]

LOL.

"The law states innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

When was she convicted again?

Did they put her in that fucking cell and not tell us about it? Damn those Mutherfockers!

not necessarily. one can be a criminal and never have been prosecuted. criminal behavior implies criminal. sorry bout that. Who do cops arrest?

Nope, according to Airplanewrench, she would be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Cops arrest suspects.

but comey told the world she committed a crime. she just didn't have intent. hahahahaahahahaha

Sorry but Comey is neither a judge nor jury making Clinton just as exonerated as Trump is. (Which of course in the partisans mind is not at all!)

sure he was. how come she didn't go in front of grand jury then? Comey had no authority to claim intent. only a grand jury does that.

I think I'll file this exchange under Mental Gymnastics for Partisans.

 

[jc456]

not necessarily. one can be a criminal and never have been prosecuted. criminal behavior implies criminal. sorry bout that. Who do cops arrest?

Nope, according to Airplanewrench, she would be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Cops arrest suspects.

but comey told the world she committed a crime. she just didn't have intent. hahahahaahahahaha

Sorry but Comey is neither a judge nor jury making Clinton just as exonerated as Trump is. (Which of course in the partisans mind is not at all!)

sure he was. how come she didn't go in front of grand jury then? Comey had no authority to claim intent. only a grand jury does that.

I think I'll file this exchange under Mental Gymnastics for Partisans.

but he did act as the judge and jury. otherwise ol hag hitlery would have been put in front of a grand jury. That's all I ever asked for. let them decide the next step, not a partisan hack named Comey and Lerner. But that judge claimed her act was a crime. therefore, she is a criminal.

 

[NightFox]

What does “does not exonerate” mean?

It means there was no or an insufficient degree of credible exculpatory evidence uncovered during the investigation to justify exoneration.

 

[Camp]

Trump lied when he said the Barr Memo exonerated him. His supporters are desperately trying to defend his lie.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nope, according to Airplanewrench, she would be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Cops arrest suspects.

but comey told the world she committed a crime. she just didn't have intent. hahahahaahahahaha

Sorry but Comey is neither a judge nor jury making Clinton just as exonerated as Trump is. (Which of course in the partisans mind is not at all!)

sure he was. how come she didn't go in front of grand jury then? Comey had no authority to claim intent. only a grand jury does that.

I think I'll file this exchange under Mental Gymnastics for Partisans.

but he did act as the judge and jury. otherwise ol hag hitlery would have been put in front of a grand jury. That's all I ever asked for. let them decide the next step, not a partisan hack named Comey and Lerner. But that judge claimed her act was a crime. therefore, she is a criminal.

I don't agree. If Loretta Lynch had given a letter to Congress and only quoted a few lines from Comey's statement such as "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.

No charges. Complete exoneration.

Would the GOP demand more information or would they just say "Well okay then time to move on"?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this?

I don't think the debate is over. I think it will last until the next federal election. Hopefully it will fade to the background but another Fauxrageous fight is just around the corner. I'm sure something new will take center stage for while, with the whole Russian/Obstruction thing popping up from time to time.

Why don't you think the debate over Russian collusion is over?

LOL.....

Just because sufficient evidence to indict was not found doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don jr. certainly was ready and eager to take a meeting predicated on the offer of Russian assistance and then lie to cover it up.

Impeachment certainly has no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that a criminal prosecution would.

I had to chuckle about this. Let's try this on for size.

Just because sufficient evidence to indict was not find didn't mean it didn't happen. Hillary certainly was ready and eager to destroy her server and thousands of emails, then claim ignorance to cover it up. Being denied the presidency certainly has no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that a criminal prosecution would.

Buubuuuttt.....Hillarrrrrryyyyy!