Mueller just dumped on Trump , clear as mud

[Steelworth]

Damn these unhinged Obama-loving lefty libtard commie ******** gobbling down media-driven fake news bullshit are driving me nuts with this impeachment talk.

Former GOP Rep. Tom Coleman: Trump, Pence are illegitimate. Impeach them
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article230713224.html

 

[Steeltime]

What's so confusing about the term 'not exonerated' Indy? It's simply DOJ legalize meaning Mueller found plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, but - per the Constitution - could not bring charges against a sitting US president. His investigation, the Mueller report itself and the underlying evidence are now exhibit A for Congressional impeachment hearings where the case should be decided, per the laws of the land.

"Legalize"? Are you trying to say "legalese"? If so, with all due respect,* you are making a fool of yourself. How long have you been a lawyer? Oh, never. How much time have you spent with lawyers talking in "legalese"? Oh, zero. Mmmkay ... How much time have you spent with DOJ employees discussing legal issues, i.e., "legalese"? Once again, zero. And you are trying to claim that you know the phrase "not exonerated" means a finding of criminal wrongdoing, but the Constitution does not permit charges against a "sitting" President?

Wrong on every count. Criminal investigations DO NOT "exonerate." Criminal charges result in one of two outcomes: guilty or not guilty. The failure to recommend a charge is BETTER than a finding of "not guilty." This article explains and saves me authoring the same view:

Exoneration, per Dictionary English. Webster’s Universal Collegiate Dictionary offers two definitions: (1) to clear from accusation, guilt, or blame; (2) to relieve from an obligation, duty, or task. Roget’s Thesaurus, 4th Ed. refers exoneration to acquittal (not guilty) and pardon (forgiveness).

Exoneration, per Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Ed., offers three definitions, the first two of which pertain to the issue. The third involves suretyship, which obviously does not apply. Those two definitions are: (1) the removal of a burden, charge, responsibility or duty; (2) the right to be reimbursed for by reason of having paid money that another person should have paid.

Exoneration, in Criminal & Civil Cases. Under American law, a verdict in a criminal case is binary: guilty, or not guilty. In a civil case the binary choice is liable, or not liable. N.B., In neither instance is there a formal legal finding of innocence. Absent a conviction, defendants are generally entitled to be presumed innocent, unless a verdict is clearly tainted.

The prosecutor must establish a prima facie case in order to get to court and present the evidence to a jury. Black’s defines this as evidence sufficient to bring the case into court, thus creating a rebuttable presumption that the opposing side must counter by presenting contrary evidence. Thus, a decision by prosecutors that insufficient evidence exists to bring the case to court is vastly stronger a vindication for a defendant than an acquittal. It is, in fine, as close to exoneration as a defendant can get in our system.

https://spectator.org/trump-vindicated-on-exoneration-prosecutors-and-innocence/

* "With all due respect": legalese for "you don't know your *** from a hole in the ground."

 

[Tibs]

Damn Steeltime, you did it again!!! Knocked that little libtard ***** Tibs right out!!! Baaaa-yoooom! Total destruction!!! Complete annihilation!!! Ha ha haha haha ha! /SN Trumpsters

 

[Steelworth]

"Legalize"? Are you trying to say "legalese"? If so, with all due respect,* you are making a fool of yourself. How long have you been a lawyer? Oh, never. How much time have you spent with lawyers talking in "legalese"? Oh, zero. Mmmkay ... How much time have you spent with DOJ employees discussing legal issues, i.e., "legalese"? Once again, zero. And you are trying to claim that you know the phrase "not exonerated" means a finding of criminal wrongdoing, but the Constitution does not permit charges against a "sitting" President?

Wrong on every count. Criminal investigations DO NOT "exonerate." Criminal charges result in one of two outcomes: guilty or not guilty. The failure to recommend a charge is BETTER than a finding of "not guilty." This article explains and saves me authoring the same view:

Exoneration, per Dictionary English. Webster’s Universal Collegiate Dictionary offers two definitions: (1) to clear from accusation, guilt, or blame; (2) to relieve from an obligation, duty, or task. Roget’s Thesaurus, 4th Ed. refers exoneration to acquittal (not guilty) and pardon (forgiveness).

Exoneration, per Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Ed., offers three definitions, the first two of which pertain to the issue. The third involves suretyship, which obviously does not apply. Those two definitions are: (1) the removal of a burden, charge, responsibility or duty; (2) the right to be reimbursed for by reason of having paid money that another person should have paid.

Exoneration, in Criminal & Civil Cases. Under American law, a verdict in a criminal case is binary: guilty, or not guilty. In a civil case the binary choice is liable, or not liable. N.B., In neither instance is there a formal legal finding of innocence. Absent a conviction, defendants are generally entitled to be presumed innocent, unless a verdict is clearly tainted.

The prosecutor must establish a prima facie case in order to get to court and present the evidence to a jury. Black’s defines this as evidence sufficient to bring the case into court, thus creating a rebuttable presumption that the opposing side must counter by presenting contrary evidence. Thus, a decision by prosecutors that insufficient evidence exists to bring the case to court is vastly stronger a vindication for a defendant than an acquittal. It is, in fine, as close to exoneration as a defendant can get in our system.

https://spectator.org/trump-vindicated-on-exoneration-prosecutors-and-innocence/

* "With all due respect": legalese for "you don't know your *** from a hole in the ground."

Damn.

 

[Steelworth]

Lmao Tibs. Good one.

 

[DBS1970]

What we are seeing now is all The unhinged leftists raging and believing what they want to believe.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Damn Steeltime, you did it again!!! Knocked that little libtard ***** Tibs right out!!! Baaaa-yoooom! Total destruction!!! Complete annihilation!!! Ha ha haha haha ha! /SN Trumpsters

Actually...he did. You've been making an *** of yourself of late (wait...you always do), speaking as an expert...and...you're a buffoon repeating your MSM talking points. I suspect you'd confuse your ******* with a rabbit hole at this point.

I mean this **** is right up there with Michael Avenatti is an American Patriot and AntiFA are the same as those who stormed the beaches on D-Day.

It's profound to watch you in action. Stupefying actually.

 

[IndySteel]

Lmao Tibs. Good one.

That was his first realistic post in years.

 

[Spike]

Tibs is due for another shot

 

[Steeltime]

Damn Steeltime, you did it again!!! Knocked that little libtard ***** Tibs right out!!! Baaaa-yoooom! Total destruction!!! Complete annihilation!!! Ha ha haha haha ha!

See! I knew you'd get it.

Oh, and thanks for the detailed, fact-laden, citation-supported reply.

On second thought, your gifs are better than your posts.

 

[JMM]

This whole thing makes no sense from start to finish. So can anyone tell me what's the end game behind Putin and the gang wanting Trump to be president? How would lower energy prices, a stronger military, stronger US economy and not giving a crap about where they would prefer we set up a missile defense shield help them? If the Russians were going to back anyone it would be Hillary. I mean they already know the routing numbers to deposit money into the Clinton Foundation.

They should have come up with a better narrative than the tired old Russian story. Heck that's so 1960s (see MLK as one similar example), but look at the actors in this play and I guess that's the best they could come up with.. They were probably also counting on America's lack of teaching history in public school to come through again. It did for many though unfortunately...

 

[DBS1970]

This whole thing makes no sense from start to finish. So can anyone tell me what's the end game behind Putin and the gang wanting Trump to be president? How would lower energy prices, a stronger military, stronger US economy and not giving a crap about where they would prefer we set up a missile defense shield help them? If the Russians were going to back anyone it would be Hillary. I mean they already know the routing numbers to deposit money into the Clinton Foundation.

They should have come up with a better narrative than the tired old Russian story. Heck that's so 1960s (see MLK as one similar example), but look at the actors in this play and I guess that's the best they could come up with.. They were probably also counting on America's lack of teaching history in public school to come through again. It did for many though unfortunately...

Sewing chaos and devision. Putin worked for the KGB and the KGB has heavily infiltrated our political left. I think they may have been banking on our unhinged leftists starting a civil war.

 

[JMM]

Sewing chaos and devision. Putin worked for the KGB and the KGB has heavily infiltrated our political left. I think they may have been banking on our unhinged leftists starting a civil war.

So it's a win win situation for them. If Clinton wins, they'll have more flexibility after the election (I've heard someone say that before, who could that have been?) they'll enjoy much higher oil prices and who knows maybe knock off another country that defected from the motherland. If Trump wins, they enjoy years of political and civil strife at the hands of their minions that will keep the economic wheels from getting into overdrive at the expense and detriment of all our citizens (except for the politicians). What a wonderful plot....

 

[DBS1970]

So it's a win win situation for them. If Clinton wins, they'll have more flexibility after the election (I've heard someone say that before, who could that have been?) they'll enjoy much higher oil prices and who knows maybe knock off another country that defected from the motherland. If Trump wins, they enjoy years of political and civil strife at the hands of their minions that will keep the economic wheels from getting into overdrive at the expense and detriment of all our citizens (except for the politicians). What a wonderful plot....

Yep.

Pretty much.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

If anyone didn't see Mueller as a POS when he released his whatever that was, it is clear now. Two years with unlimited scope, unlimited budget, and unlimited time and he finally gave up. Now he is trying to get back into the social scene.

 

[Tibs]

How long have you been a lawyer?

Yup, I misspelled the word 'legalese,' sorry about that. Didn't intend to insult you or your esteemed profession. No I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be. On the other hand, I'm certain you are an exemplary lawyer of great character, your ethics and morals must be beyond reproach. You're a brilliant legal mind, a constitutional scholar par excellence who loves to throw his weight around quoting penal codes and the fine print of the law.

One thing I do know, the Mueller investigation into the President's activities is not as cut and dry and you seem to think. Hence all the cross-talk and inconsistencies in what Barr & Mueller are saying, and what their unique interpretations are of the Constitution and DOJ policies.

Since you take so much joy in calling out and shaming others, why don't you go on a blistering attack against these folks? Their pay grade - and legal expertise - is much higher than mine.

Hundreds of Former Federal Prosecutors Would Indict Donald Trump
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

 

[IndySteel]

Yup, I misspelled the word 'legalese,' sorry about that. Didn't intend to insult you or your esteemed profession. No I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be. On the other hand, I'm certain you are an exemplary lawyer of great character, your ethics and morals must be beyond reproach. You're a brilliant legal mind, a constitutional scholar par excellence who loves to throw his weight around quoting penal codes and the fine print of the law.

One thing I do know, the Mueller investigation into the President's activities is not as cut and dry and you seem to think. Hence all the cross-talk and inconsistencies in what Barr & Mueller are saying, and what their unique interpretations are of the Constitution and DOJ policies.

Since you take so much joy in calling out and shaming others, why don't you go on a blistering attack against these folks? Their pay grade - and legal expertise - is much higher than mine.

Hundreds of Former Federal Prosecutors Would Indict Donald Trump
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

 

[Tibs]

By the way I love how this tweet from Trump yesterday will go down in infamy. Guiliani & his handlers really should confiscate his phone.

"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me get elected." -Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States

I think he went back and deleted ít, or edited it after the fact. Well of course he did. Lol

 

[Iron95]

By the way I love how this tweet from Trump yesterday will go down in infamy. Guiliani & his handlers really should confiscate his phone.

"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me get elected." -Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States

I think he went back and deleted ít, or edited it after the fact. Well of course he did. Lol

So what?

 

[IndySteel]

r/trump
•Posted byu/News_Release_Bot
24 minutes ago
Sean Davis, The Federalist: “Mueller proved his entire operation was a political hit job. Still ZERO evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion, and no new evidence from Mueller.” @TuckerCarlson @FoxNews
twitter.com/realDo...

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Yup, I misspelled the word 'legalese,' sorry about that. Didn't intend to insult you or your esteemed profession. No I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be. On the other hand, I'm certain you are an exemplary lawyer of great character, your ethics and morals must be beyond reproach. You're a brilliant legal mind, a constitutional scholar par excellence who loves to throw his weight around quoting penal codes and the fine print of the law.

One thing I do know, the Mueller investigation into the President's activities is not as cut and dry and you seem to think. Hence all the cross-talk and inconsistencies in what Barr & Mueller are saying, and what their unique interpretations are of the Constitution and DOJ policies.

Since you take so much joy in calling out and shaming others, why don't you go on a blistering attack against these folks? Their pay grade - and legal expertise - is much higher than mine.

Hundreds of Former Federal Prosecutors Would Indict Donald Trump
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

WTF??? Now you're posting petitions signed by disgruntled Liberal lawyers??? From Medium, no less?? Indy's right, you are now literally grasping at straws.

I'm surprised your hero, the American Patriot Michael Avenatti, isn't also on this list. It would be perfect for him.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Speaking of editing or retracting, ya, ya, redstate.com, so what. And Mueller was reading from a prepared script.

http://https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/05/30/mueller-backtracks-presser-tries-clarify-matters-joint-statement-bill-barr/

 

[Superman]

Yup, I misspelled the word 'legalese,' sorry about that. Didn't intend to insult you or your esteemed profession. No I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be. On the other hand, I'm certain you are an exemplary lawyer of great character, your ethics and morals must be beyond reproach. You're a brilliant legal mind, a constitutional scholar par excellence who loves to throw his weight around quoting penal codes and the fine print of the law.

One thing I do know, the Mueller investigation into the President's activities is not as cut and dry and you seem to think. Hence all the cross-talk and inconsistencies in what Barr & Mueller are saying, and what their unique interpretations are of the Constitution and DOJ policies.

Since you take so much joy in calling out and shaming others, why don't you go on a blistering attack against these folks? Their pay grade - and legal expertise - is much higher than mine.

Hundreds of Former Federal Prosecutors Would Indict Donald Trump
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand again, did Trump fire Mueller? would you be enthusiastic about someone digging into your background without boundaries? why or why not?

 

[oneforthebus]

Damn Steeltime, you did it again!!! Knocked that little libtard ***** Tibs right out!!! Baaaa-yoooom! Total destruction!!! Complete annihilation!!! Ha ha haha haha ha! /SN Trumpsters

Thanks for saving us all the trouble Tibs.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/20...es-clarify-matters-joint-statement-bill-barr/

Try this