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

[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?

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

Why are you afraid of releasing the actual Mueller report?

 

[basquebromance]

What to Do When the Russian Government Wants to Blackmail You

 

[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?

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

no, but the piece that was quoted was no indictments to act on. if there are no indictments to act on, then the main objective was not met, no finding of collusion between trump and his campaign with russia. and again, the math says I can therefore conclude no finding=exoneration. I did't write the order, but the order said collusion. no indictment means no collusion. no collusion=exoneration. it's simple math.

 

[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?

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

they can't. no finding =exoneration. anything they say now is just nonsense and butthurt like in 2016. I'm laughing. they are truly butthurt.

Release the report. the rest of what's in the 1000 pages is nothing burger's condiments.

 

[basquebromance]

These are turbulent times for Resistance Inc.

 

[hunarcy]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

 

[Clementine]

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.” . . . . "

Neither investigations or even trials exonerate people. That is never the objective. They were searching for evidence of wrong doing but there was none. It's that simple. The entire investigation was based on a dossier that we now know was paid for by Dems and contained false information. I think the dossier was intended to make Trump look bad and when that alone didn't work, they started the bogus investigation. It was all built on lies so none of them should be surprised that facts didn't back it up.

Many people made false statements and promised that evidence existed. Should they be in trouble for this? Obviously, no Dem is sitting on evidence that they failed to turn over. It wouldn't surprise me if a few are desperate enough to try and create more bullshit. It just never ends.

Now, after two years of being assured that Trump was going to be taken down, some of the crybabies are falling apart.

 

[jc456]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

 

[basquebromance]

the savviest resistance content producers are experimenting with creative messaging pivots. Occupy Democrats, for example, served its 7 million Facebook followers an old photo on Monday of Trump and O. J. Simpson, accompanied by the sarcastic message, “BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW IF YOU’RE NOT CONVICTED, YOU’RE NOT GUILTY.”

 

[jc456]

the savviest resistance content producers are experimenting with creative messaging pivots. Occupy Democrats, for example, served its 7 million Facebook followers an old photo on Monday of Trump and O. J. Simpson, accompanied by the sarcastic message, “BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW IF YOU’RE NOT CONVICTED, YOU’RE NOT GUILTY.”

but OJ was charged with a crime. the president, nope! not the same thing. apples and orangejuice baby. one can't be convicted unless one is charged. again, the math doesn't pan out for them as usual.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[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.

Why are you afraid of releasing the actual Mueller report?

I'm not. Since I've never said I was, why would you make that fallacious argument? Maybe you should see someone about that.

Of course, if I was an innocent person mentioned in the report, I would probably want at least my name redacted. Wouldn't you?

 

[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?

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

Why are you afraid of releasing the actual Mueller report?

I'm not. Since I've never said I was, why would you make that fallacious argument? Maybe you should see someone about that.

Of course, if I was an innocent person mentioned in the report, I would probably want at least my name redacted. Wouldn't you?

some loony leftist will go after them for not pronouncing the power of the finger point at the pres. just remember that.

 

[hunarcy]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

If you support the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy, you are correct.

 

[Edgetho]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

If you support the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy, you are correct.

We ALL know that ALL dimocrap FILTH believe that ALL conservatives are ALL guilty of something. Anything.

Is your last name 'Beria'?

 

[jc456]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

If you support the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy, you are correct.

Trump isn't charged, so nope that doesn't get to play in your statement. in other words, it's just nonsense.

 

[hunarcy]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

If you support the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy, you are correct.

We ALL know that ALL dimocrap FILTH believe that ALL conservatives are ALL guilty of something. Anything.

Is your last name 'Beria'?

No. Is your last name Goebbels?

 

[sealybobo]

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.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

 

[hunarcy]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

If you support the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy, you are correct.

Trump isn't charged, so nope that doesn't get to play in your statement.

He was investigated by a PROSECUTOR. No crime was found to prosecute. Innocent until proven guilty implies no prosecution equals exoneration. Now, if you support the "an investigation equals guilt", then that changes things.

 

[jc456]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

Well, obviously it's the job of a Prosecutor to prosecute people. So, the inference, at least is that if there is no prosecution happening, there was no evidence of a crime.

and again the math says, no crime=exoneration.

If you support the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy, you are correct.

Trump isn't charged, so nope that doesn't get to play in your statement.

He was investigated by a PROSECUTOR. No crime was found to prosecute. Innocent until proven guilty implies no prosecution equals exoneration. Now, if you support the "an investigation equals guilt", then that changes things.

I don't know why? there was no crime. you just said so. no charge, no crime no need for justice. again, you are just posting nonsense. one doesn't need due process until one is charged. fk i wish you fking stupid asses would learn something.