Obviously, Trump's Supporters: EITHER...1) Haven't read the Report OR.......... 2) Don't understand it In any event, going back and forth with the Pro-Trump Echo Chamber (at a Forum (Like PF) that Skews 80+% RW) is an exercise in futility. Obviously, The RW (at least those members of the Pro-Trump Echo Chamber who post at PF) completely misunderstands Mueller's Conclusions. Engaging them further is a waste of time. Just a friendly observation.
I assume you're not being serious when you say pretending to be exonerated is obstruction. None of the U.S.C. code you posted in any way applies to a president attempting to control the message that goes to the press. Seems like you're just throwing stuff out there now.
Trump has told quite literally thousands of lies and you toss tribalist BS in my face? I didn't support "You-Can-Keep-Your-Healthcare" Obama, so take up your issues with Democrats with them. Now, what about Trump? Why do you support a shameless liar? Why are you inflicting him on this country?
Actions speak louder than words. Obama's actions directly countered his words. People lost their doctors. The left is incensed by Trump having two scoops of ice cream for heavens sake.
You can't post a single economic metric that changed trajectory significantly since Trump's election. Unless of course you post a chart of the national debt.
Nope he said there easn't enough evidence which isn't the same as mo significant evidence. Mueller then goes on to talk about how the Trump team lied, withheld evidence and was unavailable for questioning. And of course Trump was to gutless to testify in person and didn't recall about thirty times. No charges but certainly no findings of of no evidence. And as for obstruction of justice Mueller left that to Congress to decide.
The president is not subject to the criminal justice system till he leaves office in a bit over a year and a half.
I agree, but they can be impeached and removed from office prior to their term ending. That's why in prior impeachment proceeding lawyers reached the conclusion crimes had been committed, and recommended prosecution. That's why the House started impeachment proceedings. In this case, Mueller couldn't find enough evidence to support the recommendation...hence why the President was cleared.
More gaslighting. Mueller said specifically Trump was not exonerated on obstruction and that he would have exonerated Trump if he felt that exoneration was justified. He also didn't say he believes Trump is guilty. Fatso running around saying he was exonerated is just one more of his lies.
Fatso has not been cleared. You're making stuff up. Mueller concluded: "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." Give it a rest.
if law enforcement invesigates you for years for an alledged crime then comes out and says the investigation is over, we can't find enough evidence to support a recommendation for a charge. Guess what? You are not guilty.
"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime," Sounds like he is pretty clear to me! It's over! The hoax has been exposed!
Of course, many did because it was a promise Obama couldn't possibly have kept. Our country suffers when voters for partisan advantage ignore their leaders lying.
There is only one President and therefore only one person we don't indict while in office. There is no apt analogy.
That is absolutely false. What you are saying is untrue. Miller did not say that there was not enough evidence to make the call. He said he wasn't going to make a call at all. Trump has not been exonerated.
That is NOT what Mueller said. He said the president can't be indicted because of DoJ policy, so he wasn't going to make the determination about whether or not there was enough evidence to prosecute.
No, we don't prosecute sitting Presidents. We have Mueller's report on the evidence he gathered and Mueller's statement that he couldn't exonerate Trump. Nothing Mueller has gathered is being tested in any legal proceedings. That's where things stand. If the House impeaches the Bloviator-in-Chief, we'll have a Senate trial. CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Fox, newspapers, blogs, etc. will be ecstatic. Foreign outlets will be happy, too. Maybe we can charge them for access to the show.
Total BS. Mueller said what would have to be done if Trump was being prosecuted. "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." Case not closed. The House can impeach the Bloviator-in-Chief if it so wishes. I think impeaching Trump would be a dumb move, as do about 60% of Americans, but who listens to us?
