Here's the Muller report. As expected Trump was innocent.

The report specifically says that he is not exonerated, only that there is not enough evidence to charge him with a crime, which is what most everyone expected in the first place.

They may not of found enough evidence to charge Him with collusion but Trump is un-shamingly not innocent.

Strathos said:

The report specifically says that he is not exonerated, only that there is not enough evidence to charge him with a crime, which is what most everyone expected in the first place.

Click to expand...

We shouldn't let actual facts get in the way of the misleading narrative that he's been cleared when it was stated very clearly by Mueller himself that Trump IS NOT exonerated. FYI, to find out the actual facts in the Mueller report, read the posts in this thread: Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

NothingIsImpossible said:

The left is already twisting everything they can. Just admit defeat and move on.

Click to expand...

The left aren't the ones who are already twisting everything they can. It is the Trump supporters who are repeatedly insisting that he has been exonerated when he has not been exonerated.

Again, let's post the actual facts in the report. Thank you, FreeinChrist, for your posts.

According to Mueller, Trump was unsuccessful in obstructing justice because his aides refused to carry out his orders. He would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling aides and Mueller.

Mueller says Trump was unsuccessful in obstructing justice - but mostly because his aides didn't follow his orders

I haven't read the report, doesn't mean I won't.

I will say that all the evidence in the world cannot prove an absence of action, except 24/7 video and audio monitoring. So the evidence will never prove he is innocent.

A lack of evidence necessary to convict does prove he is not guilty of a crime. I would argue that the investigation has been extremely thorough, and was not able to prove his guilt.

So the report says he is not guilty, not that he is innocent.

ms.smith said:

So the report says he is not guilty, not that he is innocent.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. The Mueller report ~~~ "The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment."

JackRT said:

Not exactly. The Mueller report ~~~ "The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment."

Click to expand...

But, also, if they had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly DID commit obstruction of justice, they would so state. And they have clearly stated they do not have that confidence.

Shiloh Raven said:

The left aren't the ones who are already twisting everything they can. It is the Trump supporters who are repeatedly insisting that he has been exonerated when he has not been exonerated.

Click to expand...

I have not noticed any Trump supporter claiming the Mueller report exonerated the President (not that the Mueller report is the only finished investigation on Russian Collusion). Mueller and his team are Prosecutors, although I am not crystal clear on this, it seems reasonable to think exoneration is something better suited for a Defensive team. If you're interested in a lawyer's response, listen to the Mayor:

NothingIsImpossible said:

In the end people wanted to see if Trump meddled with the Russians. He didn't. Took no part in the leaks or the Russians hacking. Thus innocent. If he were guilty of anything then he would be impeached. But as always theres nothing there to impeach him on so people should let it go. Also assumptions that there "might" be ties somehow is just an assumption.

I'm not for Trump at all but from my view everything just seems to be a witch hunt. The guy eats a burger and makes it the news far various reasons. I miss when we used to have real news and not witch hunt news. Its why I say I'm sure someone will take a picture of an unflushed toilet he used so everyone can analyze what's wrong the contents and why it makes Trump bad.

Side note, if Trump can get impeached, then I'm fine with that. Until then I am tired of 2 years straight of 24/7 Trump talk. When Obama was president it was never this agitating. Despite the right hating Obama, it wasn't a 24/7 talk about him. And yes I voted for Obama mind you, thought he was great.

Click to expand...

I just posted these links in another thread. I don't know if you've seen them yet, so I thought I would post the articles here in your thread too. Trump could still be charged with obstructing justice.

Mueller says Trump's public acts can be considered obstruction

In his report, Mueller invites Congress to investigate Trump obstruction

Mueller: Congress still has ability to find the President obstructed justice

Shiloh Raven said:

I just posted these links in another thread. I don't know if you've seen them yet, so I thought I would post the articles here in your thread too. Trump could still be charged with obstructing justice.

Mueller says Trump's public acts can be considered obstruction

In his report, Mueller invites Congress to investigate Trump obstruction

Mueller: Congress still has ability to find the President obstructed justice

Click to expand...

Here's a recent link, and not from a source known for conservatism:

Admit it: Fox News has been right all along

Shocking considering the source, probably the end of Gary's work for WP though.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

Here's a recent link, and not from a source known for conservatism:

Admit it: Fox News has been right all along

Shocking considering the source, probably the end of Gary's work for WP though.

Click to expand...

Yes, releasing inaccurate and right biased news from Fox could put a damper on his work for WP. I posted more negative rating statistics on Fox and articles about the network in another thread.

Fox News - Media Bias/Fact Check - Factual Reporting: MIXED

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources. (emphasis added)

• Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to wording and story selection that favors the right and Mixed factually based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared.

Aldebaran said:

Oh? What does the report show he is guilty of?

Click to expand...

Sorry? Was there a lack of clarity in the 4 times I read the EXACT quote DIRECTLY from the report.
That's okay, I'll do it one more so the red herring questions can end:
"The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment."

They are unable to say he is INNOCENT. That does not mean he is legally guilty, just that there wouldn't be enough evidence to FIND him guilty in court; big difference.

"Not innocent" does not mean "guilty". In this case it means, there is not enough LEGAL EVIDENCE to support a "guilty" verdict.


How many rape cases end up having this same outcome.

ms.smith said:

But, also, if they had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly DID commit obstruction of justice, they would so state. And they have clearly stated they do not have that confidence.

Click to expand...

The question remains in limbo.

Shiloh Raven said:

Yes, releasing inaccurate and right biased news from Fox could put a damper on his work for WP. I posted more negative rating statistics on Fox and articles about the network in another thread.

Fox News - Media Bias/Fact Check - Factual Reporting: MIXED

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources. (emphasis added)

• Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to wording and story selection that favors the right and Mixed factually based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared.

Click to expand...

The fact checkers need to get their facts straight. The fact checkers are not omniscient or omnipresent nor do they have access to classified and confidential information that is not illegally leaked, or made public. The fact checkers need to get a real job, maybe they will when or if the facts about the fact checkers are leaked. In fact calling something that is not a fact, is misleading to say the least. The word "fact" is such an overused word in the natural Sciences even, it behooves me to think "facts" do not involve a process known as interpretation. How many times I have read/heard someone claim something so simple as "evolution is a fact", oh really, are we referring to micro or macro evolution, because there is a difference. People use micro facts all the time to build macro theories and call them "fact", it's nothing short of deception and not amusing to me anymore. The same people who like to claim "fact", would have to back-peddle in a philosophic discussion over objective truth, and objective reality. So in this sense, it is somewhat amusing when the pure subjectivist talks about "facts" outside of their own experiences with reality especially, and at the same time not amusing in the sense of being blind to the interpretation involved of "facts" which are external or outside of their existence. What I see, is called "stacking the deck" in cards.