"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[Allandavid]

Did he accuse Trump of criminal activity? Nope.
I don't have to read the entire report as others have posted the quotes of all the relevant information on this subject. You know what no one has posted? Mueller accusing Trump of committing a Criminal Offense. No one including you.

Here were your words...

“waiting for Mueller to find the criminal activity Trump did.”

You didn’t ask for accusations....you asked for him to FIND the activity.

He did...

 

[rjs330]

Here were your words...

“waiting for Mueller to find the criminal activity Trump did.”

You didn’t ask for accusations....you asked for him to FIND the activity.

He did...

No he posted things that OTHERS might look into as possible criminal activity. He didn't actually post things that we're criminal. Big difference. He didn't actually say they were criminal.

 

[stevil]

So now it's fair to say the we couldn't prove that a person didn't commit an offense. Well I can't prove you have beaten your significant other either. But I guess that's fair.

I don't know where you are coming up with this from.

If my wife was murdered by strangulation in Hawaii on Feb 20th 2018, and I am proven to be in NZ on Feb 20 and Feb 21st of 2018 and to not have travelled by plane then I am proven to be innocent of that crime.

 

[Allandavid]

No he posted things that OTHERS might look into as possible criminal activity. He didn't actually post things that we're criminal. Big difference. He didn't actually say they were criminal.

No, he just found “obstructive acts” which had a “nexus with an official process” and in which an “intent” could be defined....all the ingredients for criminal obstruction of justice.

 

[Allandavid]

No he posted things that OTHERS might look into as possible criminal activity. He didn't actually post things that we're criminal. Big difference. He didn't actually say they were criminal.

“Your honour......yes, I robbed the liquor store and yes, I beat up the store owner and yes, the police officers chased after me and called out for me to stop. But, your honour, at no time did they tell me I was committing a crime...!”

 

[Allandavid]

Perhaps a word from Fox might help...?

 

[USincognito]

Yes just like we were just waiting for Mueller to find the criminal activity Trump did. Only he didn't.

How bizarre that over 1000 DOJ prosecutors were able to find the criminal activity in Vol. II of the report, but Some Dude On The Internet says it doesn't exist.

You guys are going to be so disappointed.

Uh huh...

 

[rjs330]

“Your honour......yes, I robbed the liquor store and yes, I beat up the store owner and yes, the police officers chased after me and called out for me to stop. But, your honour, at no time did they tell me I was committing a crime...!”

Your honor, the investigator didn't say I committed a crime. Your honor the investigator didn't say I robbed the liquor store.

 

[rjs330]

No, he just found “obstructive acts” which had a “nexus with an official process” and in which an “intent” could be defined....all the ingredients for criminal obstruction of justice.

Doesn't change a thing I said. He didn't accuse Trump if committing a crime. He pointed out certain acts that OTHERS would have to look at and see if a crime was committed. Those others have not determines that Trump committed a crime. Sorry, you can't run from that. It's a fact.

 

[rjs330]

How bizarre that over 1000 DOJ prosecutors were able to find the criminal activity in Vol. II of the report, but Some Dude On The Internet says it doesn't exist.



Uh huh...

And who has prosecuted him? Nobody.
And who is this dude on the internet that says no criminal activity exists? I'd like to meet him.

 

[rjs330]

I don't know where you are coming up with this from.

If my wife was murdered by strangulation in Hawaii on Feb 20th 2018, and I am proven to be in NZ on Feb 20 and Feb 21st of 2018 and to not have travelled by plane then I am proven to be innocent of that crime.

Yeah, but you were in Hawaii in Feb 20th. So I can't prove you didn't do it.

 

[Allandavid]

Doesn't change a thing I said. He didn't accuse Trump if committing a crime. He pointed out certain acts that OTHERS would have to look at and see if a crime was committed. Those others have not determines that Trump committed a crime. Sorry, you can't run from that. It's a fact.

And, yet again, he didn’t accuse because he couldn’t, under DOJ protocols...!

But please keep ignoring that important fact, if it helps your conscience...

 

[stevil]

Yeah, but you were in Hawaii in Feb 20th. So I can't prove you didn't do it.

What Mueller is saying, is that there are several incidents relative to the obstruction investigation which were relevant enough to document in the report, and with regards to those incidents he cannot clear Trump of criminal wrong doing.

But of course you know this, if your comprehension is of at least average capability. So i'm going to assume you are just trolling, just trying to get a reaction out of people, on a position that you are presenting that is completely untenable. That is what trolls do. For some reason this gives them kicks.

 

[stevil]

He didn't accuse Trump if committing a crime.

This is true, Mueller stated he wouldn't accuse a sitting president of committing a crime.

He pointed out certain acts that OTHERS would have to look at and see if a crime was committed.

This is true too. Mueller obviously considered those acts significant enough to document in the report and document to enough sufficiency to be evaluated.

Those others have not determines that Trump committed a crime.

Many people have determined that the crime of obstruction of justice has been carried out.
Including lawyers and judges e.g. Judge Napolitano and many others. But of course this isn't how it works.

The process is for the House to put forth for impeachment. That is what we are waiting for a decision on.
Then, if they do that, and if it gets sufficient support in the house, it goes to the Senate for a trial.
You are trivially correct that they haven't done so yet. This is indeed a trivial fact.

What I am unclear on, even if the Senate nix the impeachment (if it gets that far, or starts at all) and Trump gets to carry out his term, once the term is over, is it possible for a criminal charge to be laid on a post president Trump based on the information in the report?

 

[KCfromNC]

Here were your words...

“waiting for Mueller to find the criminal activity Trump did.”

You didn’t ask for accusations....you asked for him to FIND the activity.

He did...

Weird how the far-right spin from Fox News and co falls apart when one doesn't use the specific phrasing they're trying to convince their followers to chant.

 

[Kentonio]

What I am unclear on, even if the Senate nix the impeachment (if it gets that far, or starts at all) and Trump gets to carry out his term, once the term is over, is it possible for a criminal charge to be laid on a post president Trump based on the information in the report?

Sure, why not unless he’s pardoned? The only question I can see is whether there would be some element of double jeopardy involved if the senate cleared him, although I doubt it would be relevant as the impeachment charges wouldn’t be criminally specific.

 

[rambot]

I find it interesting that 535 posts or more people still are trying to say that Mueller couldn't accuse Trump of committing an offense.

All they're doing is using his words, reasoning,and ethics government policy and the limitations put on the investigation.

What are you using to prove that your position has more weight?

Do you believe it is fair to be charged with a crime and not be able to defend yourself?

 

[rjs330]

And, yet again, he didn’t accuse because he couldn’t, under DOJ protocols...!

But please keep ignoring that important fact, if it helps your conscience...

Not true. He could have.

 

[rjs330]

What Mueller is saying, is that there are several incidents relative to the obstruction investigation which were relevant enough to document in the report, and with regards to those incidents he cannot clear Trump of criminal wrong doing.

But of course you know this, if your comprehension is of at least average capability. So i'm going to assume you are just trolling, just trying to get a reaction out of people, on a position that you are presenting that is completely untenable. That is what trolls do. For some reason this gives them kicks.

Sure, document them. But just because they are documented doesn't mean he's guilty of a criminal offense. And thanks for reinforcing the opinion that many leftists are mean spirited. Your comment about my intelligence and accusing me of trolling is typical of the left.

 

[rjs330]

This is true, Mueller stated he wouldn't accuse a sitting president of committing a crime.

This is true too. Mueller obviously considered those acts significant enough to document in the report and document to enough sufficiency to be evaluated.


Many people have determined that the crime of obstruction of justice has been carried out.
Including lawyers and judges e.g. Judge Napolitano and many others. But of course this isn't how it works.

The process is for the House to put forth for impeachment. That is what we are waiting for a decision on.
Then, if they do that, and if it gets sufficient support in the house, it goes to the Senate for a trial.
You are trivially correct that they haven't done so yet. This is indeed a trivial fact.

What I am unclear on, even if the Senate nix the impeachment (if it gets that far, or starts at all) and Trump gets to carry out his term, once the term is over, is it possible for a criminal charge to be laid on a post president Trump based on the information in the report?

I don't think impeachment counts as a prosecution through the criminal justice system. So I believe he still could be prosecuted criminally once he's gone.