Ok word police what now

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I watch you keep spinning. If they had had confidence that the president clearly did commit a crime, they would have said so. There is nothing, no law, no tradition, that would have prevented them from saying so. In fact, the purpose of the investigation was exactly to say so if the evidence clearly led to that conclusion. The purpose of a prosecutorial investigation is to convict, not to exonerate. The American way, the American tradition, is that there is firstly a presumption of innocence. If conviction cannot be had, the presumption of innocence stands.

We are now, according to your spin, supposed to assume guilt and innocence must be proved.

No, you are incorrect, the enabling legislation and DOJ rules calls out what is required and Mueller clearly lays out what he believed he could and could not do in the report.

What we are to do at this point is really simple, the House investigates and if needed impeaches the President.

Meanwhile Trump continues to obstruct the investigation, and it is justifiable in your mind because he's mad.

Others think he is covering things up.

Pay attention to Muellers closing statement:
"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, you are incorrect, the enabling legislation and DOJ rules calls out what is required and Mueller clearly lays out what he believed he could and could not do in the report.

Can you point out a DOJ rule that prohibited Mueller from concluding that Trump obstructed justice. A conclusion is not an indictment.

What we are to do at this point is really simple, the House investigates and if needed impeaches the President.

Who are "we"? You certainly seem to be part of that crowd. A different "we," would say that what we are to do at this point is really simple, it's over, move on.

Meanwhile Trump continues to obstruct the investigation, and it is justifiable in your mind because he's mad.

What "investigation" is Trump "obstructing"?

Others think he is covering things up.

"Others" think that Mueller, Schiff, Comey, Nadler, et al. are covering things up.

Pay attention to Muellers closing statement:
"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American."

I paid attention to Mueller's closing statement, as you request, focused on it like a laser, and noted that the "central allegation" was of their "indictments". That there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election being alleged in their "indictments". I noticed that the "allegation" which deserves every American's attention was a central part of their "indictments".

Did you notice that Trump was not part of those indictments? That Mueller concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to indict Trump on charges of systematic efforts to interfere in our election?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What "investigation" is Trump "obstructing"?

if you happen to disagree with a democrat or defend yourself from their vicious attacks in any way you are guilty of obstruction

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I paid attention to Mueller's closing statement, as you request, focused on it like a laser, and noted that the "central allegation" was of their "indictments". That there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election being alleged in their "indictments". I noticed that the "allegation" which deserves every American's attention was a central part of their "indictments".

Did you notice that Trump was not part of those indictments? That Mueller concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to indict Trump on charges of systematic efforts to interfere in our election?

Hard to prove when you consistently obstruct, that is the goal of obstruction.
Why is it acceptable to some that Trump sought, received and welcomed aid from the Russians.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hard to prove when you consistently obstruct, that is the goal of obstruction.

Well if you can't prove it, quit yapping about it. Your constant referring to unproven talking points are an obstruction to civil, reasonable, logical, rational, meaningful, and ultimately fruitful discussion.

Why is it acceptable to some that Trump sought, received and welcomed aid from the Russians.

That you consider this Trumpian exercise in sarcasm as proof that Trump sought aid from the Russians is a sad commentary on your ability to see what's what.