US Election 2020

[pErvinalia]

Diversion noted. You said the media fabricated the story. They are reporting what US intelligence agencies have determined.

[Cunt]

Do you mean Mueller, who found nothing he could indict Trump for?

[L'Emmerdeur]

That isn't what the report said. It specifically noted that the Department of Justice rules precluded any finding of indictable acts by the president, and that it would therefore not be asserting any such. This is because to claim that there were indictable acts while not proceeding with indictment would create a situation in which the president was unable to defend himself in court. The Mueller report stated that it would be up to Congress whether to attempt to hold the president accountable for the acts detailed in its findings.

The long-awaited Mueller Report provides a detailed picture of the wide variety of crimes investigated by the Special Counsel’s Office, many of which resulted in indictments or guilty pleas, and, in the case of President Trump, a suggestion that Congress may review the legality of obstructive acts. Although Mueller declined to make a final determination regarding President Trump’s criminal liability, contrary to assertions from the administration, the investigation did not exonerate Trump. Instead, the report identified multiple instances of what may be considered obstructive conduct by the President. Citing limitations on its role as an arm of the Justice Department, the Special Counsel’s Office referred determination of the question of whether Trump obstructed justice to Congress.

[source]

[Tero]

The Ukraine conspiracy? Trump coerced the Ukraine president, withheld aid. It was proven. Senate decided it was not impeachable. It was not the Senate's job to find more. It could have been. They defined their job.

[Cunt]

That isn't what the report said. It specifically noted that the Department of Justice rules precluded any finding of indictable acts by the president, and that it would therefore not be asserting any such. This is because to claim that there were indictable acts while not proceeding with indictment would create a situation in which the president was unable to defend himself in court. The Mueller report stated that it would be up to Congress whether to attempt to hold the president accountable for the acts detailed in its findings.

The long-awaited Mueller Report provides a detailed picture of the wide variety of crimes investigated by the Special Counsel’s Office, many of which resulted in indictments or guilty pleas, and, in the case of President Trump, a suggestion that Congress may review the legality of obstructive acts. Although Mueller declined to make a final determination regarding President Trump’s criminal liability, contrary to assertions from the administration, the investigation did not exonerate Trump. Instead, the report identified multiple instances of what may be considered obstructive conduct by the President. Citing limitations on its role as an arm of the Justice Department, the Special Counsel’s Office referred determination of the question of whether Trump obstructed justice to Congress.

[source]

So he admitted he didn't find enough 'crime'. (where DID the notorious pee-pee tape go?)

The 'crime' was pretend, and Mueller found stuff that may have been obstructing the investigation, which found no crime to prosecute.

The investigation origins are being themselves investigated now.

If it turns out the investigation itself was suspiciously begun, will you take that into account?

[L'Emmerdeur]

I didn't expect you to give any indication that you understood the difference between being prevented by ethical considerations from asserting that criminal acts occurred and not finding criminal acts. You have not surprised me.

[Cunt]

I didn't expect you to give any indication that you understood the difference between being prevented by ethical considerations from asserting that criminal acts occurred and not finding criminal acts. You have not surprised me.

Maybe you could help me by giving me the 'rightie' rational perspective.

Unless of course you can't imagine what that is...

[L'Emmerdeur]

Maybe you could help me by giving me the 'rightie' rational perspective.

Unless of course you can't imagine what that is...

Forbes is definitely a right-wing source. I linked an article from it above (again). Sorry, I couldn't find anything from RT.

[Cunt]

Mueller makes no formal conclusion on the obstruction questions

They added a lot of flowery language.

He left it up to someone else to prove it/declare charges.

There haven't been any laid. None proven. What's that old saying...innocent until proven guilty or something?

The rightie source I am most familiar with, is that the investigation was initiated under false pretenses. If Mueller saw that, I could totally understand him being unwilling to charge obstruction. Could be awkward to talk about, too (he certainly was awkward)

If it turns out that FISA court fuckery and a known-to-be-falsified bit of intel are at the bottom of all this, will you still insist that Trump answer to the 'almost obstruction why don't you charge him' non-charge?

Or will you begin to be suspicious about how an illegal investigation gets started?

And where is the damned pee-pee tape that everyone seems to think was involved? I don't mind the rest of things being wrong, but don't let THAT be a fabrication...it goes too good with the hair and skintone...

[JimC]

I didn't expect you to give any indication that you understood the difference between being prevented by ethical considerations from asserting that criminal acts occurred and not finding criminal acts. You have not surprised me.

Maybe you could help me by giving me the 'rightie' rational perspective.

Unless of course you can't imagine what that is...

You haven't a fucking clue as to what L'emmy meant, do you...

[Hermit]

Mueller makes no formal conclusion on the obstruction questions

They added a lot of flowery language.

He left it up to someone else to prove it/declare charges.

There haven't been any laid. None proven. What's that old saying...innocent until proven guilty or something?

We mulled over this last July, but since you insist, let me (very briefly) repeat:

The Special Counsel investigation is not a court of law. It is not limited to choose between a guilty and not guilty conclusion. That is why it concluded the investigation thus: "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." and "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

I took the liberty of using bold type in the hope that you read those bits carefully and attentively, especially the words indicating what the investigation did in fact investigate. There are only three words describing the key task. You should not have a problem finding them among only 40 others. At least I hope you won't.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

...in the hope that you read those bits carefully and attentively...

While waiting, you may as well hope that the Pope sends Dawkins an email congratulating him on The God Delusion, while informing the world at large that he has realised that religion is utter bullshit...

[Cunt]

Well, I don't find it convincing, no. I already knew that there was a lot of included mealy-mouthed language in that report. I also knew that the Republicans consider it empty, and the Dems tend to insists there is MUCH more in there.

For me, innocent until proven guilty will do for now.

If the report gave Schiff and Pelosi the evidence they needed to prosecute/pursue it, then isn't it funny they shifted focus to a Ukraine impeachment, and left this altogether?

They are investigating the origins of Trump/Russia investigation now, aren't they? That will shed more light on things than Mueller's report did.

[Cunt]

The Mueller Investigation, while not stating so outright, did not exonerate Hermit.

[Hermit]

Hermit wrote:

...in the hope that you read those bits carefully and attentively...

While waiting, you may as well hope that the Pope sends Dawkins an email congratulating him on The God Delusion, while informing the world at large that he has realised that religion is utter bullshit...

My optimism is boundless. Boundless and eternal. Boundless, eternal and invincible. It overcomes every obstacle reality places in its way.

Nobody expects my optimism!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4