The Mueller Report. BREAKING NEWS: AG’s Summary Report Released. NO COLLUSION!

[Koko78]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Was red king trying to take the children to a Moscow hotel? No

Was red king running around saying "I love wiki links and children" no 

Was red king calling out to Russia to find children? No

Did red king hold a meeting in Trump Towers to meet children? No

 

 

Do you understand what evidence is? 

 

I'm sorry, the evidence was not sufficient to establish that he did those things, therefore he could be a child molester, as he was not exonerated. If he was not guilty, the report would have said so, therefore he could be a baby raper.

[row_33]

I am a decent human and don’t believe anything horrible about Red King, and wish everyone with his dumb biases would give the same benefit of the doubt to others

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, The Red King said:

When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

 

What am I biased against, facts?  The fact is, there were not enough facts to deny or establish collusion.  At no point in my post did I say or even suggest there was collusion.  Next time you read into my post, try actually reading it.

 

Irony is, you showed your bias pretty well.  Like the kid and a cookie jar example I gave, the report said there was not enough evidence to prove collusion.  Nowhere in the report does it specifically state there was no collusion.  This isn't opinion, it's concrete fact.

 

Seriously, show me where in the report it specifically says 'no collusion'.  Go on, I'll wait..

 

Show me any legal precedent or principle wherein it states a prosecutors’ job is to exonerate someone. 

 

Hint - you can’t because such a standard does not exist. 

 

You claimed multiple times in your (factless) original post that “Republicans” were lying when they said Volume I exonerated 45 on collusion. 

 

They weren’t lying, and volume I does precisely that. 

 

You’re advocating undermining the basic legal principle of our system — and you won’t acknowledge it because you’re clinging to a narrative that you’ve been sold by proven liars. 

[bdutton]

Mueller gave exactly what everyone wanted.  

 

For the Democrats: Just enough for them to cling to the conspiracy(i.e. collusion)/obstruction narrative.

For the Republicans: Not enough evidence to bring charges on conspiracy/obstruction (caveat on the whole no way to indict a sitting president)... i.e. exoneration.

 

The circus continues...

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, The Red King said:

You can say 'The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', and you would be accurate.  But that is not the same thing as saying 'The report said no collusion.'  The former suggests there is not enough evidence to support a conclusion.  The latter suggests a definitive conclusion was reached, and it wasn't.

 

Hell, the most accurate statement would be "The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', which again isn't quite the same.

 

The report says the SCO “DID NOT ESTABLISH” conspiracy — that’s game over. 

 

Unless you do not understand our legal system or the facts of this case... which you keep proving you do not. 

[B-Man]

 

Once the narrative is established, it’s difficult to dislodge. And progressive Hollywood is the Terminator of establishing narratives — they never quit.

 

 

CHRISTIAN TOTO: Why Hollywood Can’t Quit The Mueller Report.

It’s also worth pointing out that many of Saddam Hussien’s generals were convinced that his regime was holding weapons of mass destruction. Of course, he had an active weapons program, and used them on his own people as well as the Iranian military. But that program ended in the 1990s. Afterward, Saddam relied on a policyof “deterrence by doubt” that was crafted to keep international foes and Iraqis alike guessing.

 

That’s not the cry that came from the Left and Hollywood, though. Their line of attack? Bush lied, people died. So the film’s screenwriters tinkered with reality, big time, to give liberals the ending they craved. It was all Bush’s fault.

 

Something similar is happening right now regarding The Mueller Report.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Quote

"Did not establish" is not the same as conclusively saying it did not happen.

 

Yes it is when it comes from a prosecutor. Saying it doesn’t is not only factually inaccurate it’s either intentionally misleading borne from a desire to lie — or born from true ignorance of how our system of justice works. 

 

...And now shifting to “interference” is changing the subject without realizing it — because you don’t know what happened during the election of 2016 as you keep proving with your ignorant statements. 

3 hours ago, The Red King said:

 

I never once used the word 'crime' in this post.  So...thanks for showing your bias, and lack of basic reading skills.

 

You’ve said he was “not exonerated” and guilty several times. 

 

You’re being dishonest about your own nonsense now. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[row_33]

you don't have to be "not exonerated" under the Common Law

 

send Red King a totally stupid Dummy's Guide to Thinking...

 

(if he's a citizen of a country under the Common Law)

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

“To pronounce not guilty” is a synonym of “exonerate”; that’s how our legal system works.

 

Prosecutors, Special or otherwise, compile evidence or work with compiled evidence, in order to bring criminal wrong doers to court to face justice (or in the case of Presidents, to present evidence of criminality to Congress in order to begin the Impeachment process).

 

The President’s exoneration didn’t even get to the trial (Senate) phase where he wouldn’t be convicted, and thusly exonerated.  The Prosecutor found no evidence which could even push it forward to that stage.

 

There was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, or of collusion or conspiracy.  A lack of any evidence of a crime is exoneration.

 

Full stop.

[Deranged Rhino]

17 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

“To pronounce not guilty” is a synonym of “exonerate”; that’s how our legal system works.

 

Prosecutors, Special or otherwise, compile evidence or work with compiled evidence, in order to bring criminal wrong doers to court to face justice (or in the case of Presidents, to present evidence of criminality to Congress in order to begin the Impeachment process).

 

The President’s exoneration didn’t even get to the trial (Senate) phase where he wouldn’t be convicted, and thusly exonerated.  The Prosecutor found no evidence which could even push it forward to that stage.

 

There was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, or of collusion or conspiracy.  A lack of any evidence of a crime is exoneration.

 

Full stop.

 

 

[row_33]

42 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

“To pronounce not guilty” is a synonym of “exonerate”; that’s how our legal system works.

 

Prosecutors, Special or otherwise, compile evidence or work with compiled evidence, in order to bring criminal wrong doers to court to face justice (or in the case of Presidents, to present evidence of criminality to Congress in order to begin the Impeachment process).

 

The President’s exoneration didn’t even get to the trial (Senate) phase where he wouldn’t be convicted, and thusly exonerated.  The Prosecutor found no evidence which could even push it forward to that stage.

 

There was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, or of collusion or conspiracy.  A lack of any evidence of a crime is exoneration.

 

Full stop.

 

 

and the Report is full of little gossipy stuff and boasting by angry ex-employees

 

highly dubious any of it would hold up for one second under oath and SEVERE cross-examination

 

so you can't move forward with it

 

they would if they could have, even a minimal belief they could

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

I guess OJ isn't a murderer then...

No he isn’t! Not in this country. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 hours ago, The Red King said:

The thread title is misleading.  At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion.  Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion.  So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno.  Maybe?".  And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no.

 

At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie.  Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one.  It doesn't exonorate him.  Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie.  And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling.

 

Your cookie analogy is preposterous, unless in your scenario:

 

• There is no evidence a cookie was stolen;
• The investigation that was undertaken was shackled by none of the tradition rules of appropriate law enforcement engagement, with an unlimited budget, overseen by one man who hand-selected his team of prosecutors based in least at part on their animus toward the boy;
• The investigation into the cookie that apparently was never stolen played out on a massive scale, with the friends of the boy spied upon with the tacit approval of the sitting president of the US, with their names selectively leaked to the press, with the former head of the CIA (one of 2 or 3 people out of nearly 7.8 billion with unrestricted access to every piece of intelligence available to the most powerful nation in the world) starting emphatically that the boy stole the cookie, with the former head of the FBI (one of the other 2 or 3 people out of the 7.8 billion citizens of the world) doing precisely the same;
• Prominent members of Congress claimed that they had specific, incontrovertible evidence that the boy stole the cookie, that they would release that evidence when the time was right, and never did;
• The investigation into the cookie included hauling known associates of the boy into interrogation rooms for questioning on issues totally unrelated to the cookie, with some of the most powerful people in the world threatening them with extended incarceration, looking for process crimes (You said the cookies were chocolate chips, but weren't they, IN FACT, OATMEAL RAISIN??), and offering sweetheart immunity deals to the friends of the boy in exchange for something, anything of value that could lead to the appearance of impropriety on the part of the boy;
• Sending a geared up SWAT team to the house where a kid who sat three seats behind the boy in homeroom (and who ate lunch with him after 3rd period math), to kick in the door if necessary to haul the kid away in the back of a police van--but not before calling the local media with an established pattern of publish anti-cookie-boy stories to tip them off about the late night/pre-dawn raid;
• Moving an associate of the boy to solitary confinement in a max security, ostensibly for his protection, where the vast majority of similarly accused criminals would be spending time in a much less dangerous facility;
• After a $35-40 million campaign of terror, and a 400+ page report that at be best summarized by the haters of the cookie boy as "Yeah, the DOJ/FBI/CIA, man, they were way off here, turns out we can't find enough here to say one way or the other";
• After receiving and dissecting the 400+ page report, key members of Congress continued to sow the seeds of distrust against the cookie boy, claiming, in fact, that it was his denial of charges that he stole the cookie that was the REAL crime, and would impugn the reputation of the chief special cookie counsel and his minions because his report ultimately did not perpetuate the narrative that they--as sitting members of congress, perpetuated for nearly 3 years;

 

In North Korea, the advantage folks like Obama, Clinton, Brennan, Schiff et al have is instead of having to laboriously create and perpetuate a story about a cookie that was never missing being stolen by a political adversary, they just make them disappear.  As much as I despise it, Thank God for Twitter or the American people would never have heard directly from the accused and the narrative would have been entirely shaped by selective leaks and innuendo.

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[keepthefaith]

11 hours ago, The Red King said:

The thread title is misleading.  At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion.  Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion.  So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno.  Maybe?".  And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no.

 

At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie.  Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one.  It doesn't exonorate him.  Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie.  And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling.

 

Are you really this much of a turd?  Have you read Mueller's report at all?  Link below, see near bottom of page 2 of the introduction where it unequivocally states that the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russians to interfere with the election. If you're too ***** lazy to read just consider the gigantic scope, effort and $ invested in the investigation and the outcome.  Not a single American within or outside of the Trump family and campaign was charged with any crime related to a conspiracy to interfere in the election.  Not one. 

 

If you're gonna split hairs between collusion and conspiracy, just remember that the word collusion was used thousands of times by Trump's adversaries.  Legally speaking they should have been using the word conspiracy. 

 

As for Russian interference, it's a ***** joke how little they did, how amateurish it was or that it changed any votes. 

 

This investigation and its' outcome without question exonerates Trump on the "collusion" accusations. 

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by keepthefaith

[3rdnlng]

43 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Are you really this much of a turd?  Have you read Mueller's report at all?  Link below, see near bottom of page 2 of the introduction where it unequivocally states that the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russians to interfere with the election. If you're too ***** lazy to read just consider the gigantic scope, effort and $ invested in the investigation and the outcome.  Not a single American within or outside of the Trump family and campaign was charged with any crime related to a conspiracy to interfere in the election.  Not one. 

 

If you're gonna split hairs between collusion and conspiracy, just remember that the word collusion was used thousands of times by Trump's adversaries.  Legally speaking they should have been using the word conspiracy. 

 

As for Russian interference, it's a ***** joke how little they did, how amateurish it was or that it changed any votes. 

 

This investigation and its' outcome without question exonerates Trump on the "collusion" accusations. 

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html

 

 

 

 

He's about 3 years too late arriving here at PPP. I doubt his mind can be changed since he's obviously been sucking at the teets of the MSM during that time.

Edited July 3, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[DC Tom]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

“To pronounce not guilty” is a synonym of “exonerate”; that’s how our legal system works.

 

Prosecutors, Special or otherwise, compile evidence or work with compiled evidence, in order to bring criminal wrong doers to court to face justice (or in the case of Presidents, to present evidence of criminality to Congress in order to begin the Impeachment process).

 

The President’s exoneration didn’t even get to the trial (Senate) phase where he wouldn’t be convicted, and thusly exonerated.  The Prosecutor found no evidence which could even push it forward to that stage.

 

There was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, or of collusion or conspiracy.  A lack of any evidence of a crime is exoneration.

 

Full stop.

 

But if there's no evidence of the crimes Trump committed, that's evidence of a cover-up, so he's still guilty!

[row_33]

6 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

No he isn’t! Not in this country. 

 

yup, i think i saw OJ acquitted by a jury for murder

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims.

 

 

 

.

 

[McGee Return TD]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims.

 

 

 

.

 

 

Nice - hopefully he's asked about this and not his anal opening by the Gohmert clan Republicans

[Deranged Rhino]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/33-key-questions-for-robert-mueller_2988876.html