Russia, if youâre listening, please blow up Twitter. And FUX News⌠I canât bear the thought of non-stop gloating.
No Sarah. Thatâs not what it said. Specifically, it did not âexonerate â him. Now go pray to Jesus.
Why of course it is!
EVERYBODY DRINK!!!
Quite a change of tone from âwitch huntâ and âeveryone, including the dirty agents, is out to get meâ
" White House Calls Mueller Report âTotal And Complete Exonerationâ Of Trump "
Just the opposite.They tried to fix the race,but to many people are watching.
Mueller: We are not exonerating him. The President might have committed a crime in obstructing justice
White House: The President is totally exonerated!
Canât wait for Barrâs walkback.
The congressional committees have their hands full with actual investigations to probe. HRC &/or POTUS Obama arenât going to be among them.
Insufficient evidence to convict does not equal innocence. As Big Jule said in Guys and Dolls: âWell, I used to be bad when I was a kid, but ever since then Iâve gone straight, as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!â Big Donnie can say the same, for now!
So whereâs all those people who were saying Mueller wasnât going to let this type of white wash happen? What is his master plan to right justice.
I havenât gone back over it but it looks like he wrote a lawyerly letter that was factually accurate up to a point and seriously misleading in a way that they knew could be spun outrageously as usual by Sanders et al. as a total vindication. He said explicitly that Trump was not exonerated by Mueller on the obstruction; Sanders said OK over to you Bill and said he was exonerated of everything more or less in the end. Mueller said they couldnât âestablishâ the conspiracy; Sanders said they âfound no collusion.â Barr kept his skirts tidy and lets the political side play out as he knew it would.
His Orange Insufferableness is going to be particularly insufferable now.
Oh, for a semen-stained blue dress right nowâŚ
Why did Mueller punt?
Another failing grade in reading comprehension
In the obstruction section, you have this sentence:
In cataloguing the Presidentâs actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Departmentâs principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Not exonerated, but not charged either. Really have to wonder about Muellerâs thinking, but it should come out eventually.
Well, seems clear enoughâthey had three conditions they needed to be able to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt for any given action, so they had a high burden of proof and felt they couldnât meet it. What seems intuitive and obvious to us might have well seemed that way to them too, but professionally they were working with a different set of standards. Journalists face this all the timeâyou may know perfectly well somebodyâs dirty, but if you canât prove it you canât write it. Itâs frustrating but those are the rules of that particular game. : (
Well, âno collusionâ is not the same as âno help from Russiaâ nor âNo manipulation of the electorateâ.
I still think the most plausible theory is, that the Russian engagement wasnât as much pro-Trump as anti-Clinton, since Putin bore a personal grudge against Sec Clinton, over sanctions against him and his henchmen.
An interesting question is: How much knew the Russians about the Mercer funded âSDL/Cambridge Analyticaâ operation? Did they have a mole there ? Did they just amplify the manipulation already ongoing, adding some leverage from the Internet Research Agency. I hope this will be revealed in due course,
The Guardian:
âŚ
Letâs also assume his four-page summary of the special counselâs investigation is the very best case he can make on behalf of the man who just hired him.
That case would sink any other leader in any other western country. Any previous president of the United States would need to start lawyering up for impeachment.
According once again to Trumpâs own attorney general, making his best possible case for his boss, Mueller declined not to make âa traditional prosecutorial judgmentâ about whether Trump committed a crime. So Barr made it for him. Strip away all the legal throat-clearing, and he decides the case is ânot sufficientâ.
Quoting Mueller, Barr writes: âWhile this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.â
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/24/mueller-report-trump-collusion-corruption-congress-democrats
âŚ
âCase not provenâ on two counts sounds like the end of a long Democratic dream.
Itâs actually a blessing.
For starters, Muellerâs considerations were narrowly drawn and judged but the issues he has surfaced â and the investigations he has spawned â are far broader.
In particular, US and state attorneys in New York are peeling away the layers of the stinking onion that is the Trump family business. Those layers include hush money to a porn star, fraudulent statements to lenders and insurers about real estate, a sham family foundation and corruption involving foreign donations to an inaugural committee.
In short, a president who may or may not be guilty of obstruction of justice doesnât suddenly grow a halo of legal purity while running for president. And he doesnât clean up his act in office, either.
Another reason a) we have to see the report and b) the House team needs to pick up the ball here. Theyâre working a much different gameâall they have to do is show troubling, dubious facts. Itâs not a question of reasonable doubt and prosecutorial standards. Itâs a question of WTF was going on, why was a Trump Tower server talking to an Alfa Bank server, how did the Russians know which districts to target with extra social media attention to get out just the votes they needed in the right places and all that fun stuff.