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.
Wrong. He was not charged because he found no evidence he committed any crime. That’s the standard we operate in America
This is your fantasy. Did you not read or hear the part where Mueller said charging him with a crime was not an option, only because he was the president?
He could have committed murder, and Mueller could not have charged him. And people like you would be saying, "Oh, he's innocent because he wasn't charged!"
No, sorry. He wasn't charged only because he's the president, since presidents can commit crimes and not be charged. He wasn't not charged because he was innocent.
Trump fans refuse to understand that distinction, because it's inconvenient for them to do so.
Apparently he just couldn't find the crime, but thinks there might have been one. Otherwise it most likely would have been described in the report. So now, I'm under the impression members of Congress think they can find it.
But will they find it before the 2020 election? Will they spend all their time and effort on that? If they find it, it's a huge success for them. But if they don't........
Barr flat-out lied to the public. He should be removed. No way the report exonerates Trump.
Another loony response.
Firstly, Barr and former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein came to such a legal conclusion on their own. The fact that Mueller felt that he couldn't make a determination one way or the other doesn't foreclose the authority of other justice department officials from making such a determination.
Secondly, Mueller is an unethical fool. And, yes, it violates legal ethnics to do what he is doing. You are presumed innocent under law unless convicted of a crime. You do not attempt to drag someone's name under the rug when you don't even have enough evidence to recommend an indictment one way or the other. Yes, I get that Mueller also felt that he could not charge POTUS with a crime even if he wanted to, but the point here is that he couldn't even conclude whether he thought obstructed occurred one way or the other.
You could tell Mueller REALLY REALLY wanted to indict Trump for obstructed but that DOJ policy got in the way.
His bold statement "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" is a softball pitch to Nancy Pelosi. Very strong evidence in the report he obstructed justice.
It's over to you, Nancy. Begin an impeachment inquiry. Duty calls.
And he said if he had committed a crime he would have said so
So there is no crime and there is no exoneration required
If you feel this way can you convince the senate GOP to Impeach (you know, actually say they would vote to do so if the evidence points) and then we can all actually listen to the evidence?
Just the record, “if we had confidence the president didn’t commit a crime we would have said so” is a ridiculous statement. He sure said he didn't have enough evidence to do so. (That was so Comey-ish)
1) That’s not a prosecutors job, Bob. Stay in your lane, or it become political, not criminal.
2) Did Mueller say that about anyone else smeared with Collusion innuendo in the report? Carter Page? Sam Clovis?
And he said if he had committed a crime he would have said so
So there is no crime and there is no exoneration required
Absolutely NOT what Mueller said AT ALL. Your statement is completely false.
He specifically said:
"If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.