This forum member is rapidly creating threads, which is a red flag in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida
What this outcome is not, however, is a “Complete and Total EXONERATION,” as Mr. Trump unsurprisingly spun it.
|
If there are no charges, there can be no exoneration.
To wit, you are "not exonerated" from killing Jane down the street.
You are "not exonerated" because you have never been charged with the crime. Even if you have been investigated for the crime, there was not sufficient enough evidence to bring charges (ranging from zero evidence to insufficient), and therefore you were not charged. And cannot be exonerated for the crime.
You people need to learn the meaning of words in the English language. As for the press, who has no excuse, they are doubling down in their consistent mission to undermine the social fabric of this nation now with their intentional misuse of words.
Exoneration can have two meanings in the legal sense. Here they are:
Quote:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/exonerate
To exonerate someone is to declare him not guilty of criminal charges. This word is pretty much only used in reference to proceedings in a court of law. A word with a similar meaning that might be familiar is “acquit.”
|
Both definitions require that charges be brought. No charges, no exoneration.
Quote:
|
Mr. Mueller explicitly declined to exonerate the president on the matter of obstruction of justice
|
Mueller cannot exonerate Trump. A jury would have to exonerate Trump. Mueller decides to bring charges, or not. Your hero knowingly passed that decision to Barr. Barr decided not to bring charges. End of story. That's all of the "exoneration" that people who do not warrant charges get. That's all of the "exoneration" that you get for not killing Jane and the cops not having the evidence to bring you to trial.
This "no exoneration" narrative is a joke, which will never go anywhere, and its sole result will be to earn even more rightful hostility from the other half of the nation. Its sad when you people are willing to blindly mortgage this nation's social fabric even when no positive outcome is possible for you. You support antidemocratic propagandists and their agents.
Quote:
|
We know that the Russian government interfered repeatedly in the 2016 presidential election, by hacking into computer servers of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. We know that it did this with the goals of dividing Americans and helping Donald Trump win the presidency.
|
You don't "know" why the Russians did anything because you aren't a high level Russian operative. You are injecting your political narrative into what you hope will be a narrative accepted by the nation. No sale.
You don't "know" that the Russians didn't intentionally get caught to create political turmoil in this nation. If they did, then mission accomplished and you people were there perfect patsies when in the course of attempting a coup you irreparably divided this nation and eradicated trust in the press institution. That seems to be a good an outcome for the Russians as any.
Quote:
We know that when top members of the Trump campaign learned about this interference, they didn’t just fail to report it to the F.B.I. They welcomed it. They encouraged it. They made jokes about it. On the same day that Mr. Trump publicly urged the Russians to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails, they began to do just that. And we know that when questioned by federal authorities, many of Mr. Trump’s top associates lied, sometimes repeatedly, about their communications with Russians. None of this is in dispute.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/o...stigation.html
|
Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician, who has been caught, in decades and her emails are evidence of that. If she were not so corrupt, then no foreign agents would have had a target in those emails. Do not think that we will be distracted from Hillary's malfeasance by your formally failed collusion narrative that you can not let go of. You got your nation dividing investigation, it failed in terms of your partisan goal to unseat the president, and its over. We will take anyone still agitating for it at this point to be enemies of the constitution (domestic enemies) who are attempting a soft coup as a result of the outcome of an election.
Anything that Trump did was reviewed by Mueller. What you are describing is now formally irrelevant partisan narrative.
"Lying" as a process crime is the result of perjury traps that are designed to catch anyone without a steel trap memory, and give investigations leverage. Big deal. People were punished for being caught in the perjury traps, and the investigation moved on. Those points are now irrelevant.
Moreover, your collective narrative that candidates, presidents-elect, and presidents cannot have contact with foreign nationals that your propaganda organs try frame as off limits is antidemocratic and nonsensical.
If we are going to investigate Russian contacts, then lets investigate Israeli, British, and French, and Saudi contacts (and money).
How many people in the press and across both isles have dual passports? That seems much more compromising. Lets investigate that.
The NYT is an agent of the failed coup. Their credibility is dead. Thank goodness for this nation.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
