a professional environmentalists take on Hunter Biden laptop

[Got Stripers]

The Special Counsel indicted 34 people—seven U.S. nationals, 26 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national—and three Russian organizations. Now that's a hoax for sure Jim, keep that foil hat tight, otherwise your going to loose brain matter you can ill afford to loose.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The Special Counsel indicted 34 people—seven U.S. nationals, 26 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national—and three Russian organizations. Now that's a hoax for sure Jim, keep that foil hat tight, otherwise your going to loose brain matter you can ill afford to loose.

this goes back to Jim and others logic since they didn't tie Trump directly it never happened

and they always leave this statement out

Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

and they always leave this statement out

Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

What Mueller wrote should indicate to you, that the purpose of the investigation is to make a conclusion. In order to make a conclusion, there must be substantial unequivocal evidence. If there is not such evidence, there is, at least in law, a presumption of innocence. If there is not sufficient evidence to indict, the matter is over for the counsel. There is no need for any comment on exoneration. That merely muddies the investigation and its purpose.

When there was not enough evidence to indict Trump for conspiracy, that was not "exoneration". It was the CONCLUSION that Trump was not indictable. He might, in reality, have committed the crime, but if that can't be proven, the matter is over. By law, Trump is presumed innocent. But if you want to feel, or think, or have the opinion, that he is guilty, that's your prerogative.

As for obstruction, the duty and process for Mueller is the same. He could not find unequivocal evidence that Trump could be indicted for obstruction. It wasn't his duty to "exonerate," it was his job to CONCLUDE if Trump was indictable. He couldn't.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What Mueller wrote should indicate to you, that the purpose of the investigation is to make a conclusion. In order to make a conclusion, there must be substantial unequivocal evidence. If there is not such evidence, there is, at least in law, a presumption of innocence. If there is not sufficient evidence to indict, the matter is over for the counsel. There is no need for any comment on exoneration. That merely muddies the investigation and its purpose.

When there was not enough evidence to indict Trump for conspiracy, that was not "exoneration". It was the CONCLUSION that Trump was not indictable. He might, in reality, have committed the crime, but if that can't be proven, the matter is over. By law, Trump is presumed innocent. But if you want to feel, or think, or have the opinion, that he is guilty, that's your prerogative.

As for obstruction, the duty and process for Mueller is the same. He could not find unequivocal evidence that Trump could be indicted for obstruction. It wasn't his duty to "exonerate," it was his job to CONCLUDE if Trump was indictable. He couldn't.

Has nothing to do with the DOJ's position on not indicting a sitting president, nah no nah nothing.
\

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Has nothing to do with the DOJ's position on not indicting a sitting president, nah no nah nothing.
\

Not really. If the special counsel cannot indict a sitting president, then there would be no reason to appoint one. And if there were unequivocal evidence to indict or prosecute, that could be stated so in the report as it was stated in vol. 1 regarding conspiracy where it was stated that there was insufficient evidence. The examples of possible obstruction in vol. 2 were not unequivocal, but could mean other than obstruction, as, I believe, Mueller stated. Therefor they could not be grounds for indictment.

If the Counsel can state insufficient, he can state sufficient, even if the DOJ policy denies him the ability to indict. Otherwise, what's the point of investigating obstruction. He can conclude, that is the point of a special counsel investigation. Leaving it up in the air is the same as saying it wasn't the responsibility of the special counsel to begin with. And throwing in the "cannot exonerate" bit is not only inconclusive, it is irresponsible, it is an example of creating an air of guilt without having to actually demonstrate guilt--which can, rightly, be perceived as a political "conclusion" rather than a legal one. Or, as another incidence of "deep state" influence or interference on government policy and or on public perception.