Did Robert Muller completely exonerate Trump?

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?

DOJ, Mueller’s Office Release Joint Statement Clarifying Mueller’s Comments

"Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office, released the following statement:

The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements."

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.

Butt Hurt Cry Babies don’t care about that

Mueller doesn’t want to testify now😂😂

What a weeny

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.

eat

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

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
👇