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

[Hutch Starskey]

What does “does not exonerate” mean?

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

Great. Post up that part of the report.

 

[NightFox]

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.

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

 

[basquebromance]

brothers & sisters: McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that he would not have been able to obtain a FISA Warrant without the dossier. McCabe later said the comment was taken out of context. YA RIGHT!

 

[basquebromance]

how can the dossier be true. Trump is a GERMAPHOBE! FAKE NEWS!

 

[LoneLaugher]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

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

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

We have yet to see Mueller's report.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What does “does not exonerate” mean?

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

Great. Post up that part of the report.

Okay. Post up the part where it doesn't.

And don't give that cop out of "this report didn't find evidence Trump committed a crime, but it does not exonerate him"

Because that is not up to a prosecutor to determine. Either he did, or he didn't.

 

[basquebromance]

"only crazy people think Russia influenced the election" - Mark Zuckerberg in 2016...he has since backtracked

 

[Lesh]

What does “does not exonerate” mean?

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

Wait. You mean Barr lied to the Congress?
Yea they really DO need to see that report

 

[basquebromance]

"wikileaks! i love wikileaks!" Trump crowed on october 10, 2016

 

[gipper]

What does “does not exonerate” mean?

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

Wait. You mean Barr lied to the Congress?
Yea they really DO need to see that report

I want the full report released.

What silly goofs like you don’t get is there is no collusion. You got duped by the Ruling Class media AGAIN.

I don’t doubt for a second, that Trump has committed illegal actions during his life time and may have done unseemly and unjust things during the campaign. Just as Hillary did.

 

[gipper]

What does “does not exonerate” mean?

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

Great. Post up that part of the report.

Okay. Post up the part where it doesn't.

And don't give that cop out of "this report didn't find evidence Trump committed a crime, but it does not exonerate him"

Because that is not up to a prosecutor to determine. Either he did, or he didn't.

The establishment media has failed to explain those words from Mueller, to their consumers of their bullshit.

 

[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.

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

It is my understanding those were the words of Mueller, not Barr. Am I wrong?

Has Mueller publicly disavowed those words?

 

[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.

Buubuuuttt.....Hillarrrrrryyyyy!

Like I said, it made me chuckle. Admit it, you did too.

 

[hadit]

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.

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

Not good enough. His being in a coma means he dodged the prosecutor's questions, thus obstructing the investigation. You know someone would try to make that argument, as unhinged as these are.

 

[jc456]

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

well no, the mueller report exonerated him. Barr merely told us what it said. It said no open indictments, no finding of collusion, which was the SP objective. So, no finding= exoneration. tell me how it isn't?

 

[NightFox]

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.

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

It is my understanding those were the words of Mueller, not Barr. Am I wrong?

Has Mueller publicly disavowed those words?

As far as I know, neither Barr nor Mueller ever publicly pronounced or authored a conclusion that Trump has been exonerated of anything nor have they implied such a conclusion.

Do you have a source that differs?

 

[jc456]

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"?

'ifs' and unicorns eh?

 

[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.

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

It is my understanding those were the words of Mueller, not Barr. Am I wrong?

Has Mueller publicly disavowed those words?

As far as I know, neither Barr nor Mueller ever publicly pronounced or authored a conclusion that Trump has been exonerated of anything nor have they implied such a conclusion.

Do you have a source that differs?

well sure there was, there were no indictments to act on. Period! The objective was to find if there was collusion between trump and the campaign with russia. Did mueller find any such thing? Is that being reported, trump found to be colluding? nope. no finding=exoneration. it's math, if this is one thing, then it cannot be another. and the conclusion... no finding = exoneration as I said.

 

[Camp]

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

well no, the mueller report exonerated him. Barr merely told us what it said. It said no open indictments, no finding of collusion, which was the SP objective. So, no finding= exoneration. tell me how it isn't?

You haven't read the Mueller report. You are only repeating the lies told by Trump.

 

[hadit]

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

well no, the mueller report exonerated him. Barr merely told us what it said. It said no open indictments, no finding of collusion, which was the SP objective. So, no finding= exoneration. tell me how it isn't?

They have to keep alive the faintest possibility. It's all they have.