The Mueller Report

[Mountain Man]

That is actually not exactly what he said. Here is what he actually did say: "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,”.

From the report itself (and I'm sitting here looking at the PDF on my own computer; this isn't coming to me second hand): "In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

Which brings us back around to the fact that Trump's every action with regards to the investigation must necessarily be interpreted through the lens of a wrongfully accused man doing nothing more than protesting his own innocence

[One Bad Pig]

From the report itself (and I'm sitting here looking at the PDF on my own computer; this isn't coming to me second hand): "In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

Which brings us back around to the fact that Trump's every action with regards to the investigation must necessarily be interpreted through the lens of a wrongfully accused man doing nothing more than protesting his own innocence

You should think about not feeding the trolls. Charles couldn't care less what anyone says to him here; any response is an opportunity to provoke something further.

[Charles]

From the report itself (and I'm sitting here looking at the PDF on my own computer; this isn't coming to me second hand): "In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

Here is from the report itself (and I'm sitting here looking at the PDF on my own computer; this isn't coming to me second hand):

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.

Which brings us back around to the fact that Trump's every action with regards to the investigation must necessarily be interpreted through the lens of a wrongfully accused man doing nothing more than protesting his own innocence

As you can see in the report this is not the conclusion in it. If you personally make your own conclusion you should not present those conclusions as the conclusions in the report.

[Bill the Cat]

That is actually not exactly what he said. Here is what he actually did say: "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,”.

The report is quite clear on this: "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

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.

[Mountain Man]

"...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.

[Charles]

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.

And then there is this detail to it from the report: "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."

[Sparko]

Again dummie, read the actual report and stop acting the fool.

Have you read it Jimmy?

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

[Bill the Cat]

And then there is this detail to it from the report: "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."

Because if someone were to look at a few of his outbursts in the LEAST charitable way, and bend the law to the furthest extent, then and only then MAY there have been something that could be construed as trying to hinder the investigation. Stretch the facts and the law to unreasonable conclusions, and you MAY have grounds, but Muller states that they are all insufficient to indict. Game, set, match.

[Charles]

"...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.

Correct if you don't pay attention to the content in the report that you don't like such as: "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."

So it is not presented as a case of "this is not our job" but rather what is said: "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."

[Charles]

Because if someone were to look at a few of his outbursts in the LEAST charitable way, and bend the law to the furthest extent, then and only then MAY there have been something that could be construed as trying to hinder the investigation. Stretch the facts and the law to unreasonable conclusions, and you MAY have grounds, but Muller states that they are all insufficient to indict. Game, set, match.

That is your idea about what they are pointing to. Feel free to justify it. If Mueller is so certain there is nothing to it at all then why is he not saying so? As I have shown both you and MM many times, he certainly is not saying so.

I will allow myself to follow what is actually in the report and not a misrepresentations by those who should just honestly declare they disagree with or don't believe in Mueller.

[Sparko]

And now it is all about "obstruction" of a phony charge and investigation.

No there was no obstruction. That is why he wasn't charged with obstruction. And there was no collusion.

They now need to go after the people who created this farce about collusion in the first place: Hillary and Obama's administration.

Where's the collusion JimL? Tassman? Where is it? You promised us that Mueller would prove collusion!!!

[oxmixmudd]

Because if someone were to look at a few of his outbursts in the LEAST charitable way, and bend the law to the furthest extent, then and only then MAY there have been something that could be construed as trying to hinder the investigation. Stretch the facts and the law to unreasonable conclusions, and you MAY have grounds, but Muller states that they are all insufficient to indict. Game, set, match.

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

You need to do more than just look at the pro-Trump media talking points.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Because if someone were to look at a few of his outbursts in the LEAST charitable way, and bend the law to the furthest extent, then and only then MAY there have been something that could be construed as trying to hinder the investigation. Stretch the facts and the law to unreasonable conclusions, and you MAY have grounds, but Muller states that they are all insufficient to indict. Game, set, match.

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.

[Mountain Man]

Correct if you don't pay attention to the content in the report that you don't like such as: "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."

Another way to read this is "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."

[RumTumTugger]

Again dummie, read the actual report and stop acting the fool.

have you read it JimL or are you taking your leftist's overlords word for what is in it?