A theory on the absurd non-exoneration

[Celticguy]

He didn't want fringe lefties camping in his front yard for the rest if his life so he threw them a meaningless bone.

[archives]

https://stage.time.com/5558083/muell...release-starr/

True, but that doesn't justify why Americans should just accept the judgement of a political appointee on what was in the report. If the lead investigator purposely adds the thought that his investigation does not totally vindicate the President Americans should be able to see what led him to that conclusion

[Truth Detector]

Wrong, Barr wrote that while Mueller's report "does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," which doesn't mean "there is no evidence that would lead to a conclusion there was no obstruction of justice" as you claimed

You really need to stop being a dishonest asshat on steroids snowflake.

After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

You are portraying Barr's report as the Mueller report, which it is not, and only the release of the report in its entirety will settle the question

Barr's summary constitutes the Mueller report you ignorant dunce. It outlines the conclusions from the massive amounts of evidence, data and interviews. If you actually believe that after pouring through all the contents of Mueller's exhaustive efforts you will find anything that is inconsistent, you really are a dumb fuck on steroids.

But alas, it is non-thinking morons like you the Party of the Jackass needs in order to be stupid enough to place them in power.

[Darth Omar]

Wrong, Barr wrote that while Mueller's report "does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," which doesn't mean "there is no evidence that would lead to a conclusion there was no obstruction of justice" as you claimed

You are portraying Barr's report as the Mueller report, which it is not, and only the release of the report in its entirety will settle the question

That throws your theory out the window.

All Mullet needed to say was Trump was guilty of crime but he was unable to raise an indictment against a sitting president. And if Barr did a word change on that he’s going to go down—and it’s not if but when.

Barr has been around along time. To think he would throw himself under the bus at this point makes no sense whatsoever.

[Truth Detector]

[archives]

You really need to stop being a dishonest asshat on steroids snowflake.

After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.



Barr's summary constitutes the Mueller report you ignorant dunce. It outlines the conclusions from the massive amounts of evidence, data and interviews. If you actually believe that after pouring through all the contents of Mueller's exhaustive efforts you will find anything that is inconsistent, you really are a dumb fuck on steroids.

But alas, it is non-thinking morons like you the Party of the Jackass needs in order to be stupid enough to place them in power.

Do you understand what first person singular means? Or did you just purposely overlook the "I conclude," meaning Barr concluded, the same guy Trump appointed and made perfectly clear beforehand he didn't believe a sitting President could be charged with a crime, what a surprise

"... does not exonerate...." doesn't mean vindication regardless of Barr's summary and Barr's summary is not the Mueller Report, it is Barr's summary of the Mueller Report, kinda like twilight uber to the White House Nunes memo you Trumpkins proclaimed was the last word

[Wilhelm Zenz]

republicans are way to happy is this a big fake act????

[archives]

That throws your theory out the window.

All Mullet needed to say was Trump was guilty of crime but he was unable to raise an indictment against a sitting president. And if Barr did a word change on that he’s going to go down—and it’s not if but when.

Barr has been around along time. To think he would throw himself under the bus at this point makes no sense whatsoever.

Hardly, more so it means Muller knew the report wasn't going anywhere with Barr as AG and by adding the "does not exonerate" meant there would be a demand to see why he felt the need to add that consideration. As I noted earlier, the Starr report never charged anyone of a crime, but it contained information that some felt merited citing the President of wrong doing

And I'm not saying Barr took a dive for Trump, rather that he is political, Trump chose him for a reason, and it was pretty well made clear beforehand short of actually shooting someone on Fifth Avenue Barr wasn't going to charge a sitting President of a crime

They should release the full report, but Trump ain't ever letting that happen, so the inneundos and suspicions will maturate in time

[Bill]

All Mullet needed to say was Trump was guilty of crime but he was unable to raise an indictment against a sitting president.

Omar, that is ridiculous, even for you..

[Truth Detector]

Do you understand what first person singular means? Or did you just purposely overlook the "I conclude," meaning Barr concluded, the same guy Trump appointed and made perfectly clear beforehand he didn't believe a sitting President could be charged with a crime, what a surprise

"... does not exonerate...." doesn't mean vindication regardless of Barr's summary and Barr's summary is not the Mueller Report, it is Barr's summary of the Mueller Report, kinda like twilight uber to the White House Nunes memo you Trumpkins proclaimed was the last word

Translation:

[Truth Detector]

Hardly, more so it means Muller knew the report wasn't going anywhere with Barr as AG and by adding the "does not exonerate" meant there would be a demand to see why he felt the need to add that consideration. As I noted earlier, the Starr report never charged anyone of a crime, but it contained information that some felt merited citing the President of wrong doing

And I'm not saying Barr took a dive for Trump, rather that he is political, Trump chose him for a reason, and it was pretty well made clear beforehand short of actually shooting someone on Fifth Avenue Barr wasn't going to charge a sitting President of a crime

They should release the full report, but Trump ain't ever letting that happen, so the inneundos and suspicions will maturate in time

Willful idiot thinks he knows what Mueller was thinking.

[Truth Detector]

Omar, that is ridiculous, even for you..

Poor Bill; he was born without a brain.

[Darth Omar]

Hardly, more so it means Muller knew the report wasn't going anywhere with Barr as AG and by adding the "does not exonerate" meant there would be a demand to see why he felt the need to add that consideration. As I noted earlier, the Starr report never charged anyone of a crime, but it contained information that some felt merited citing the President of wrong doing

And I'm not saying Barr took a dive for Trump, rather that he is political, Trump chose him for a reason, and it was pretty well made clear beforehand short of actually shooting someone on Fifth Avenue Barr wasn't going to charge a sitting President of a crime

They should release the full report, but Trump ain't ever letting that happen, so the inneundos and suspicions will maturate in time

Barr, the rare bird establishment republican that would trash his career for Trump lol.

You go with that.

[Darth Omar]

Omar, that is ridiculous, even for you..

Omar had this whole deal pegged two years ago lol.

[reagansghost]

uh, why didn't Mueller exonerate Trump for Obstruction of Justice?

perhaps that's Congress' responsibility plus he can't indict?