ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

coatofarms wrote:

Prosecutors need to proof guilt beyond suspicion of a doubt. They need evidence that can be used in a court. Prosecutors weren't able to get it. That's all the Mueller Report appears to say.

Yup. Trumpets won't understand that though. Funny how they're so adept at 'reading between the lines' when it comes to their favorite clown, but completely incapable of doing so otherwise.

USA is worse off than Russia in the spy game in the first place. An 'officially confirmed' Trump-Russia collusion would be a global political disaster that would require ten times more undeniable evidence than a stabbing where police catches the perp red-handed. As hateful as he is, the orange baboon is a minor nuisance in comparison to pissing off the only nuclear superpower that could devastate USA.

"

coatofarms wrote:

Prosecutors need to proof guilt beyond suspicion of a doubt. They need evidence that can be used in a court. Prosecutors weren't able to get it. That's all the Mueller Report appears to say.

Or in plain English, "not guilty".

"

coatofarms wrote:

Prosecutors need to proof guilt beyond suspicion of a doubt. They need evidence that can be used in a court. Prosecutors weren't able to get it. That's all the Mueller Report appears to say.

So they have no evidence to convict.

What am i not understanding?

Peace,

-Boem-

The summary letter from Barr is laughable in the extreme. Unfortunately, their god emperor said he's been exonerated - he hasn't - so the magas will take up the same moronic refrain.

By the way magas, there are still at least 19 criminal, congressional and counter-intelligence investigations underway, regarding all aspects of cheeto's life.

"

Boem wrote:

What am i not understanding?

Peace,

-Boem-

I'll just type out what's on the front page of the NYT.

"The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him'."

The above quote is part of Barr's summary of the Mueller report.

But the NYT head-line says 'MUELLER FINDS NO TRUMP-RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY, BARR SAYS'.

It's wrong to say Mueller didn't find any evidence of conspiracy .. Mueller wasn't able to make a definitive conclusion.

"

Boem wrote:

Isn't there like a white house release on the matter?

I'm assuming they are not going to make the file itself public.

Peace,

-Boem-

Judging by Barr's letter, it appears as if he is open to releasing as much as they can from Mueller's Report:

Good time to gloat?

"

Boem wrote:

So they have no evidence to convict. What am i not understanding?

They don't have enough evidence to even bring charges, which means they believe if it went to a trial, the prosecutors would likely lose.

"

coatofarms wrote:

"The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him'."

The above quote is part of Barr's summary of the Mueller report.

But the NYT head-line says 'MUELLER FINDS NO TRUMP-RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY, BARR SAYS'.

It's wrong to say Mueller didn't find any evidence of conspiracy .. Mueller wasn't able to make a definitive conclusion.

NYT is accurate on both accounts, as they are two different things. The investigation was two fold - Collusion and Obstruction. The no exoneration part applies to the obstruction side. As Mueller made no determination, the Attorney General looked into it himself and did not find any substantial evidence of obstruction.

The green underline supports what you said, the Orange and Red show where the report refutes what you said.

Cheers Dalai, so it's a waiting game.

Will be interesting to see but i reckon it will contain a lot of black lining which will make everybody go loco again.

@coat, i get it.

Am i just wrong to assume that the FBI would act if the president was corrupt and in collusion with russia?(or showed signs of that)

I sort of imagine if they found anything in that direction it would be turned upside down and sideways.
I sort of imagine the FBI going "eh maybe" on domestic issue's or slander charges and that sort, but not on a state-safety consideration.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : cheers for the text dalai, that clears that up a bit. Bless you

"

Boem wrote:

@coat, i get it.

Am i just wrong to assume that the FBI would act if the president was corrupt and in collusion with russia?(or showed signs of that)

I sort of imagine if they found anything in that direction it would be turned upside down and sideways.
I sort of imagine the FBI going "eh maybe" on domestic issue's or slander charges and that sort, but not on a state-safety consideration.

Peace,

-Boem-

Law enforcement would only act if they had compelling evidence of a crime. For example, if they had a voice-recording, or a paper document. Circumstantial (weak) evidence is no good. Law enforcement apparently could not find compelling evidence. So Mueller determined he could neither rule for nor against that the President colluded with Russia. Results are inconclusive.