Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

"If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" -Robert Swan Mueller III

I voted yes.


Functionally, this exonerated Trump. It's over and has been over for ages. The left will cling to their fantasies but nothing will change. Trump will be the president in 2020.

Poor Pooty bot clinging on to dingleberries. Let it go

Trump wasn't exonerated and this will cling to his presidency up until it ends on 1/20/21.

OJ was cleared more of his crimes and he all known he did it

What exactly did Trump do?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
What exactly did Trump do?

He was indirectly involved in one or two conversations that also involved Russia. They were using the same tactics the Democrats were using to get dirt on his biggest opposition to get elected in 2016. This made some Democrats really mad. And they do not accept that Trump beat them in the election despite the Democrats putting up the most corrupt presidential candidate in history.


This is the truth of the matter. And all of us know it. There's not debate to be had. Just you guys trolling back and forth all the time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He was indirectly involved in one or two conversations that also involved Russia. They were using the same tactics the Democrats were using to get dirt on his biggest opposition to get elected in 2016. This made some Democrats really mad. And they do not accept that Trump beat them in the election despite the Democrats putting up the most corrupt presidential candidate in history.


This is the truth of the matter. And all of us know it. There's not debate to be had. Just you guys trolling back and forth all the time.

Bingo. This should be the end of the thread.

Indirectly involved with two conversations required a two year investigation?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Indirectly involved with two conversations required a two year investigation?

Should have taken 2-3 months if you assume it would take a bit for some people and places to comply with subpoenas.

#CopingThread

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump wasn't exonerated and this will cling to his presidency up until it ends on 1/20/21.

OJ was cleared more of his crimes and he all known he did it Almost the perfect analogy Rob!

Pretty much every news source I can find agrees with how Rob and I interpret Muller's statement.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Almost the perfect analogy Rob!

Almost? *sadface*

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Pretty much every nrws source I can find agrees with how Rob and I interpret Muller's statement.

LOL!

Are these the same news sources that were pushing russiagate for the last couple of years?

Can't have enough Trump threads, eh no?

Originally posted by Robtard
Almost? *sadface* O.K. it was perfect; the papers are interpreting it as the clear statement it is.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump wasn't exonerated and this will cling to his presidency up until it ends on 1/20/21.

OJ was cleared more of his crimes and he all known he did it

At least OJ admitted to it, kind of

Originally posted by cdtm
At least OJ admitted to it, kind of True mate, very true. Trump will never admit anything.

TDS is so strong now they're upset he won't admit to things he didn't do...lol!

Looked to me like he was trying his level best to avoid making any definitive statement at all.

More or less a plea to read the damned report, and stop asking for his opinion of the report.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
"If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" -Robert Swan Mueller III

The op quote is proof that trump was not exonerated. Also, **** robtard

Originally posted by cdtm
Looked to me like he was trying his level best to avoid making any definitive statement at all.

More or less a plea to read the damned report, and stop asking for his opinion of the report.

Seems like he is struggling with his integrity. His integrity made him choose not to even try to determine if Trump committed a crime, I'm guessing cuz it could have potentially put him in the situation of saying "he committed a crime, but we can't do anything about it". Which isn't fair to anyone.

On the other hand his integrity wasn't showing when he essentially went "well we couldn't prove he's innocent". It's not the job of a prosecutor to exonerate, etc.

It's just as shady as him whining to Barr that he didn't like how the media was portraying his report. These are not things a prosecutor with integrity does.

Mueller press conference today was exactly like Comeys.

Originally posted by Surtur
Seems like he is struggling with his integrity. His integrity made him choose not to even try to determine if Trump committed a crime, I'm guessing cuz it could have potentially put him in the situation of saying "he committed a crime, but we can't do anything about it". Which isn't fair to anyone.

On the other hand his integrity wasn't showing when he essentially went "well we couldn't prove he's innocent". It's not the job of a prosecutor to exonerate, etc.

It's just as shady as him whining to Barr that he didn't like how the media was portraying his report. These are not things a prosecutor with integrity does. Barr has integrity though?

**** off, Fly sock. Originally posted by quanchi112
Barr has integrity though?

Originally posted by Blakemore
**** off, Fly sock. You ok?

He's probably drinking heavily again.

Seriously, **** Robtard.

Robtard needs to go, off with his head.

**** BrolyBlack, too.

Surter as well, just no kissing.

DDM can **** me.

Bashar can fist me with Imp.

**** you

Suttbex, for sure.

Originally posted by Surtur
Seems like he is struggling with his integrity. His integrity made him choose not to even try to determine if Trump committed a crime, I'm guessing cuz it could have potentially put him in the situation of saying "he committed a crime, but we can't do anything about it". Which isn't fair to anyone.

On the other hand his integrity wasn't showing when he essentially went "well we couldn't prove he's innocent". It's not the job of a prosecutor to exonerate, etc.

It's just as shady as him whining to Barr that he didn't like how the media was portraying his report. These are not things a prosecutor with integrity does.

There's also if his memory failed him and he said anything not in the report at all, he'd have both parties going after him.

Better to just keep saying "I refer you to my report" if they subpoena him, and eat a contempt ruling if they press him.

Time to move on from this, old-boy.

i dont really care tbh, for me trump's biggest crime is being way too retarded diplomatically to be a president lol, idgaf about his specific relationships with other countries

Originally posted by Putinbot1
"If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" -Robert Swan Mueller III

This statement alone is extremely weird.

How does one get evidence so that you would be confident of "no crime"?

And why is it worded like "well any crime whatsoever" instead of "this specific crime"?

The wording seems deliberately misleading.

It's like me being accused of punching someone then when the investigator found no proof decided to go: "Am I sure that Nib never punched anybody? Well, no."

It just seems to me Mueller couldn't find anything and he was just convinced by dems to make the wording as confirmation-bias friendly as possible. :-/

Sorry guys. This tells me more about Trump being innocent than anything.

Wow, I never expected this thread to trigger people as much. The poll seems decisive. He wasn't exonerated in most peoples eyes.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
This statement alone is extremely weird.

How does one get evidence so that you would be confident of "no crime"?

And why is it worded like "well any crime whatsoever" instead of "this specific crime"?

The wording seems deliberately misleading.

It's like me being accused of punching someone then when the investigator found no proof decided to go: "Am I sure that Nib never punched anybody? Well, no."

It just seems to me Mueller couldn't find anything and he was just convinced by dems to make the wording as confirmation-bias friendly as possible. :-/

Sorry guys. This tells me more about Trump being innocent than anything.

Yeah anyone still maintaining Mueller is an upstanding guy after this is delusional. It certainly sounds like he kinda *wants* to be the upstanding guy people tried to claim, but he struggled and ultimately lost the battle to do so. Giving democrats even a tiny bit of bait to nibble on was apparently worth making himself look bad lol. Meh oh well.

Since some people appear to be unaware of this, The American judicial system works on innocent until proven guilty.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
This statement alone is extremely weird.

How does one get evidence so that you would be confident of "no crime"?

And why is it worded like "well any crime whatsoever" instead of "this specific crime"?

The wording seems deliberately misleading.

It's like me being accused of punching someone then when the investigator found no proof decided to go: "Am I sure that Nib never punched anybody? Well, no."

It just seems to me Mueller couldn't find anything and he was just convinced by dems to make the wording as confirmation-bias friendly as possible. :-/

Sorry guys. This tells me more about Trump being innocent than anything.

Sounds to me like the other way around. They didn't find evidence of collusion, the purpose of the investigation, but in the course of the investigation found evidence of a crime or crimes that under current legislation are unable to indict on. It also sounds like they never pursued that evidence any deeper because they knew they would be unable to act upon it.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Sounds to me like the other way around. They didn't find evidence of collusion, the purpose of the investigation, but in the course of the investigation found evidence of a crime or crimes that under current legislation are unable to indict on. It also sounds like they never pursued that evidence any deeper because they knew they would be unable to act upon it.

Actually there is nothing in the constitution that says a sitting president can't be indicted, so it was weird for Mueller to say it's unconstitutional. If there is something in the constitution that says so I'd be curious to see it.

Also the policy itself applies only to the president, yet Mueller didn't charge Trump jr. with anything, even perjury. In fact not a single person in the trump campaign got charged with anything to do with collusion *or* obstruction.

There was also nothing stopping Mueller from recommending charges and letting the DOJ decide what they wanna do, yet he didn't do that either.

He played the weasel game: gave a weasel statement and then went "tee hee can't ask me questions!". He'll claim he doesn't want to get involved in politics, but the decision itself is political. He does not want to have to answer the question of if the policy was the *only* thing that kept him from taking action. There are two possible reasons he doesn't wanna answer. Because if the answer is "yes" it makes Trump look bad and if the answer is "no" it makes Trump look good. I find it highly unlikely he'd try to protect Trump, what about you? Do you find that likely?

I don't find it likely, since his whiny letter to Barr was essentially "the media isn't making Trump look bad enough". A weird thing for a prosecutor to cry about, but meh.

Nah he didn't, but that's not his job. His job is not to prove innocence.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Sounds to me like the other way around. They didn't find evidence of collusion, the purpose of the investigation, but in the course of the investigation found evidence of a crime or crimes that under current legislation are unable to indict on. It also sounds like they never pursued that evidence any deeper because they knew they would be unable to act upon it.

I looked at the statement and if you break it down logically and rephrase it, the statement is essentially:

"we can't prove/we don't know that he never committed a crime".

They don't know if he didn't do something?

Something being a crime of an unspecific nature?

They cannot prove a negative that an unspecific general act existed ever...

From my standpoint, this statement tells us nothing, but it has enough for confirmation bias-adled folks to cling to since it doesn't 100% refute what they are thinking and are convinced of.

I am certain Mueller understands the implication of his words and how his words can be used by other against him and others (likely Trump). So I'm thinking he chose his words carefully. IF there was something related to the investigation, I'm sure he would have implied it. But a general non-statement like this was said just to imply something that can't be proven wrong because of its unspecific general nature.

It's like implying during a debate that someone lied by going "I'm sure he lied sometime in his life".

But that's from where I'm looking,

Mind telling me how you came upon your analysis?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Since some people appear to be unaware of this, The American judicial system works on innocent until proven guilty.

You would think this a hard concept to grasp.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Sounds to me like the other way around. They didn't find evidence of collusion, the purpose of the investigation, but in the course of the investigation found evidence of a crime or crimes that under current legislation are unable to indict on. It also sounds like they never pursued that evidence any deeper because they knew they would be unable to act upon it.

Massive tax fraud for sure. Have to wonder what else, extortion, bribery, rape, coercion, blackmail etc

Originally posted by Robtard
Massive tax fraud for sure. Have to wonder what else, extortion, bribery, rape, coercion, blackmail etc

Well Muellers team completely blew away the "the only reason he isn't indicting him is cuz of the DOJ policy!" theory, eh? Lol.

Anyone who voted yes is either a liar or a retard.

Mueller just recently confirmed in his speech that he didn't exonerate Trump on obstruction, just declined to rule one way or the other based on the weird rule that apparently a president can't be convicted of a crime.

Originally posted by quanchi112


Trumpers are going to Copenhagen.

Originally posted by mike brown
Anyone who voted yes is either a liar or a retard.

Mueller just recently confirmed in his speech that he didn't exonerate Trump on obstruction, just declined to rule one way or the other based on the weird rule that apparently a president can't be convicted of a crime.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/cIfkjZp4n5RcrzTLal/giphy.gif

eat

I think it's rather insensitive to call a retard a liar

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Control yourself.

When Trump bombed Japan, this should have taken care of the investigation

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/24/politics/barr-mueller-report/index.html

wow, he lied, fooling nobody?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
wow, he lied, fooling nobody? Yup!

well I'm just baffled by this. truly.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
well I'm just baffled by this. truly. I think while he was President they were literally scared shirtless of him and on his gravy train at the same time.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/24/politics/barr-mueller-report/index.html



"Justice Department releases unredacted Barr memo detailing decision not to charge Trump with obstructing Russia probe" -snip

"concluded that Barr didn't actually rely on the memo for legal advice, never seriously considered charging Trump, already made up his mind before he commissioned the memo" -snip


Shocked, totally shocked, Barr did that.