The Mueller Report

[Charles]

Which is why I keep looping around to the fact that the President was not found guilty of any crimes, meaning that his every word and action must NECESSARILY be interpreted as those of an innocent man.

You are doing so even though I have repeatedly shown that this is not the conclusion in the report. It might be your own conclusion (fair enough). Here is (once again) what the report said:

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

[Sparko]

You are doing so even though I have repeatedly shown that this is not the conclusion in the report. It might be your own conclusion (fair enough). Here is (once again) what the report said:

so since they could not conclusively find him guilty of obstruction, then he is by default not guilty of obstruction. That is how our justice system works over here Charles. They don't have to prove he didn't commit obstruction, that is what they have to assume unless they can prove he did commit obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt. What you see in that quote is "reasonable doubt"

[Bill the Cat]

No, he makes clear he can't act due to justice dept policy, but that congress can.

And he made it clear that there was not sufficient evidence to charge him with obstruction. Legally, that exonerates him. Politically, he can be impeached by Congress, that is true, and has never been questioned by any of us.

[JimL]

IOW, Mueller understood that even after a two year investigation that there was not sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice.

You're bias has infected your ability to see.

[Sparko]

You're bias has infected your ability to see.

Where's the Russian collusion JimL? You promised us collusion!

[Charles]

so since they could not conclusively find him guilty of obstruction, then he is by default not guilty of obstruction. That is how our justice system works over here Charles. They don't have to prove he didn't commit obstruction, that is what they have to assume unless they can prove he did commit obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt. What you see in that quote is "reasonable doubt"

That is luckily also how things work over here, Sparko, and that is how it should be in the legal system. However, that does not change what the report clearly says. It says: "Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

You could make the case that such a statement is unfair and I would certainly be able to see that point. However, what is in the report is in the report, and everyone is free to disagree with the content or find it unfair. Claiming it makes statements it does not make is something different.

[JimL]

IOW, Mueller understood that even after a two year investigation that there was not sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice.

Trumps obstruction is spelled out in the report. Have you not read it. If you have, then your bias is infecting your brains ability to comprehend facts. But then again, that is nothing new!

[Charles]

Where's the Russian collusion JimL? You promised us collusion!

If you are disappointed about no collusion I am afraid you are going to have to go for the second best option. The Russian put great effort into swinging the election. I am doubtful whether your president would be president if it was not for the Russians (read the report as it gives great insight into the scope of this). They were so effective that there was no need for collusion.

[seer]

Trumps obstruction is spelled out in the report. Have you not read it. If you have, then your bias is infecting your brains ability to comprehend facts. But then again, that is nothing new!

Then Jim why didn't Mueller recommend indictment?

[Bill the Cat]

That is luckily also how things work over here, Sparko, and that is how it should be in the legal system. However, that does not change what the report clearly says. It says: "Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

You could make the case that such a statement is unfair and I would certainly be able to see that point. However, what is in the report is in the report, and everyone is free to disagree with the content or find it unfair. Claiming it makes statements it does not make is something different.

The fact remains that there is no indictment, nor will there be one because there is nothing of consequence to warrant an indictment. Questionable statements do not make for good legal cases.

[JimL]

Because a report can not judge on something like obstruction, which requires intent to commit a crime. And intent has to be judged indictable by a prosecutor, not an investigator.

The intent was there, was obvious. Read the report dummie and stop defending the criminal underminer of democracy. Btw, Trump basically admitted to his guilt when Sessions told him that a special prosecuter was appointed. His response was "Oh my god, this is terrible, my presidency is over, I'm f....ed. That's what you call consciousness of guilt.

[Charles]

The fact remains that there is no indictment, nor will there be one because there is nothing of consequence to warrant an indictment.

I am not too certain that there will not be any further digging into the details of some of the more complicated stuff Mueller points to.

Questionable statements do not make for good legal cases.

I agree. I am not certain that is the only thing going on here though.

Some have pointed to the idea that this is up for the voters to decide the next time they vote. I like that idea. I am, however, a little afraid that people are stuck in their own positions, thinking in "us and them" to an extent that it wont have an effect on too many people.

[JimL]

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

It's not a prosecutor's job to exonerate. They either indict (or recommend indictment), or they don't. So the takeaway here is "this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime". That's all the exoneration anybody could ever ask for.

Mueller didn't indict because in his opinion you can't indict a sitting President. That's why he left it up to Congress and there is plenty of evidence to prove, as far as I'm concerned, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the President is guilty of obstruction and that ties right in to the collusion aspect. The President is a scoundrel who thought he was above the law, and the only reason he has any chance of surviving this is because the many advisers that he ordered to commit obstruction refused to do so.

[Bill the Cat]

The intent was there, was obvious.

No it wasn't, you tool.

Read the report dummie

I've read the pertinent parts. I'd wager you haven't read all 400 pages.

and stop defending the criminal underminer of democracy.

I'm not defending Obama or Clinton.

Btw, Trump basically admitted to his guilt when Sessions told him that a special prosecuter was appointed. His response was "Oh my god, this is terrible, my presidency is over, I'm f....ed. That's what you call consciousness of guilt.

As expected, you, like your liberal news crap pushers, missed the context of that quote. Trump was not talking about that. He was talking about how these investigations paralyze Presidents.

As anticipated though, you never let us down with your liberal stupidity, Jim.

[JimL]

Have you read it Jimmy?

Or are you just waiting for the liberal talking points memo?

You posted it Sparko, so I assume you've read it. Do you disagree with my so called talking points?