Uhhhh...guys? What’s going on here? I thought a prosecutor’s job is to prove guilt, not innocence. Was I wrong...

He said in the report and the speech that the reason he didn't indict is because he believed it's unconstitutional for him to charge a president. He said there is a congressional process in place for that (impeachment).

They didn't find personal involvement of Trump conspiring with the Russian government (though his son is REALLY fucking stupid and could easily end up charged himself). So yeah, "no collusion" the Russians were largely acting on their own.
However it's very likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice with the firing of James Comey. the things Comey wrote down about meetings with Trump are actually kind of scary, to have a president trying to get people to be personally loyal to him, rather than to the United States. the POTUS is a public servant, not a king, he does not get to demand fealty.

when he spoke yesterday all i heard was a timid little faggot voice and i immediately stopped listening.

How could you possibly prove that Trump is innocent with an accusation like that? All you can find is absence of evidence for his guilt.

It's not like he was accused of raping a specific person on a specific day or something.

>to have a president trying to get people to be personally loyal to him, rather than to the United States
>this is new
>this is a deviation from the norm

Jesus chirst, how could you be on Jow Forums and still be so idealistic?

This.
I mean obviously no one is going to read a 400 page report, but now we know that any news source that claimed the Mueller Report said "No collusion. No obstruction." is fake news.

>All you can find is absence of evidence for his guilt.

Exactly. Thats why when a court rules in a criminal matter they dont rule you to be "innocent" they rule you to be "not guilty". The question before the court is of the existence of guilt as innocence is presumed.

Are you retarded? Inability to prosecute is exoneration.

Thats the fucking standard of innocence.

If that's true we should be impeaching them all. This country was founded on ideals, and that just goes against the very basic ones like not having a king.

Did you watch the speech? He said the legal process is different for the president and that the proper process would be impeachment.

>the things Comey wrote down about meetings with Trump are actually kind of scary, to have a president trying to get people to be personally loyal to him, rather than to the United States. the POTUS is a public servant, not a king, he does not get to demand fealty.
wtf why weren't all 45 presidents impeached yet. it was her turn to serve the people!!!

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton either. I couldn't trust either of them so I voted 3rd party, both of them seemed like they were doing it more to satisfy their egos rather than to do anything good.

The ideals are the system, not the people in it. If you honestly beleive POTUS current or prior have not made loyalty a requirement then, and I dont mean to be rude, you haven't spent much time the in world.

>the proper process is impeachment
>impeachment for a crime
>a crime that I am unable to prove
>here are 300+ pages detailing how I am unable to prove any crime

Yes I watched it.

>(((vote 3rd party)))

Well, because, as conservatives, that's a Thing We Don't Talk About, a third rail. And Mueller is talking about it.

The same thing happens in dysfunctional/codependent families (often times ones involving alcoholism/addiction, NPD, bipolar, physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, untreated medical symptoms, etc.), when a crisis happens, and one family member points out the elephant in the room. Bonus points when the elephant in the room is the de facto source of the crisis rather than just an aggravating factor, but everyone else wants to blame a scapegoat anyway. Usually this is closely followed by the abusive person throwing a fit.

Some common, related family sayings: "You know we don't talk about that! You know how your father gets when someone brings that up!" or "This is all your fault! Everything would be fine if you would just do what abusive SO says!" or "See what you made me do."

Attached: sil.jpg (500x281, 28K)

Based schizo with his incoherent ramblings

What I don't understand is how this senile old faggot can go out there and basically say " we can't find any evidence of any crimes or wrongdoing, but oh he's not exonerated". Isn't this basically akin to slander as he's supposed to be unbiased (yeah right), but yet accusing him of doing some sort of collusion? What a clown world.

>presumption of innocence until proven guilty

That’s old-fashioned thinking, user. We’ve made so much progress since then. Now, if your politics are incorrect, you will be harassed by loving prosecutors until you can prove that you have never committed any crime, ever. And no complaining, user. That’s obstruction.

because he needs the fire on trump to last until 2020 election is over, they will continutally try to ring out bullshit, if the give up on the foundation on the last few years of unjust disruption of his presidency not only will the DNC crumble but the institutes in the media that propped them up and the jews behind the curtain cant have that amount shekels being lost.

Where is the call to imprison all presidential warlords for their fake wars!?? Trump have not attacked any other nation yet as far as I am aware. At the moment he's simply an Israeli bitch waiting for his order to start a war. Then you can talk about impeaching him IMO.

>vote against your conscious goyim, the "lesser of two evils" that's the one you want. Vote for the one that kisses Israel's ass the most you stupid goy.

i like this pasta i eat it everytime

There's no way everyone here is as autistic as they act.

I like Trump too, but ya'll drink the koolaid a little too much

He should have fired comey day one. The guy had managed to piss off every single person in DC with the Hillary investigation. Had she won, she probably would have gotten rid of him too. There's plenty of reasons Trump would want him gone besides obstructing an investigation that was based on bullshit from the beginning.

Sure there's plausible deniability, I said that. But the circumstances of the firing are suspicious. If he had fired Comey day 1 without things like asking personal loyalty, asking for him to go easy on Michael Flynn, etc, there wouldn't be any substantial evidence of an attempt to obstruct justice. But the context of when he was fired makes it hard not to be suspicious of the motive and that's the difference between a crime and not a crime in this case. Motive.

Or, just maybe, kill yourself you fuckign subhuman.

Wrong. Trump is the head of the DOJ, he was perfectly within his rights asking them to go easy on Flynn. He did not order it, he did not threaten anyone, and the investigation was actually illegal. It was a seizure of some of the president's power by the Dems. Go back to Vox, we do not welcome you low IQ types here.

Isn't that context all uncorroborated though? I don't really accept the notes of James comey at face value. Haven't been paying close enough attention to that aspect of this to know if it goes beyond his words.

>t. William Barr
so if Trump came out and said "I fired Comey to end the witch hunt" you wouldn't say that was obstruction of justice since he canned an investigation into one of his personal friends who was, a foreign agent?

I guarantee you had it been a democratic president you'd be asking for impeachment over the same thing. You're letting your political bias cloud your judgement too much.
>It's okay when a conservative does it!
doesn't fly.

The media would have had no problems with flynn and the emoluments clause had he been working for a democratic elect.

the media might not have, I would. Washington was 100% right that political parties are poison.

his goal was to get Trump to shut the whole investigation down (hence the obsession with obstruction even though it doesn't make any sense since he let it finish) and they failed because Trump saw that dumbfuck plan coming from miles away. It’s exactly the same fuckup they made with the Russian claims in the first place.

Give him 40 million more dollars.... I'm sure he will get right on that. He will hire Maxine, Corey and Kamala to help.

Please green text the portion that notes the crimes of Trump

That will shut the smarties up

Our new citizens and our lefties don't laws and constitution and shiet.

What the fuck is wrong with you Jow Forums?

I know you're a bunch of disgusting racists, but how could you slander Dr. King like that? It isn't right and you bastards know it.

Attached: Robert Mueller.jpg (432x599, 74K)

Worry not.
There's a reason God established and enforces the You reap what you sow doctrine

Attached: 1557639558255.jpg (236x327, 20K)

trade wars are political. not economic.
impeachment is political. not legal.
laws are for punishing your enemies and helping yourself and your friends.

By your standard of measure Pizzagate is absolutely true and Podesta and co should be electrocuted

By your measure 0bama should have been im bleached because Kenyans cant serve as US POTUS

>its a great (((idea))) to vote 3rd party and destroy your political power

>CAN ANYONE FUCKING READ
We've long since passed the time for the use of arguments or civil debates. They're using doublespeak and doublethink on a daily basis (those who are still capable of it) and have a massive NPC following that is for all intents and purposes braindead. Normies have ruined the west because they're so easily manipulated. Only violence can solve the issue.

>if
>if
>if

If grandma had nuts she'd be grandpa.

Flynn was set up. Just like everyone else has been set up. The agents who interviewed Flynn stated that Flynn was truthful, but the higher ups wanted him prosecuted anyway. So they did, and threatened his family and bankrupted him until he was backed into a corner and plead guilty just to end it.

There was no justice. Kill yourself.

Not exonerated means he's proving Trump guilty. If I remember right, it was something like >10 counts of obstruction of justice.

If we don't discuss and counter Mueller stuff, it might hurt Trump.

Why would his son be charged

You’re right, Mueller is being deceptive since he is a deep state pos. If you’re not charged with a crime, in the USA this means you’re not guilty of a crime. The only way to be innoncent is to go to trial, ie the prosecutors have enough evidence to charge you in the first place. Mueller couldn’t even get to a threshold of enough evidence to even charge. Mueller should be hauled before Congress to explain himself.

How are u still under the belief of him being charged? Rational discourse needed.

It's a response to Barr's letter, which said that the Mueller report exonerated Trump.

Probably Democrat's screeching about the Trump tower meeting with Natalya Veselnitskya, who was acting on behalf of Fusion GPS, and was only in the nation because that hack Preet Bharara signed off on it. It was always a fucking set up to justify their illegal spying. It can not be uncoupled.

Fpbp

Well you sound pretty intelligent and not like a knuckle dragging idiot at all

I thought he wasn't charging because he wasn't in the right position to.

He aaid the only reason he couldn't charge Trump with obstruction of justice is that you can't charge a sitting president with a crime. If it was anyone else he would've charged them.

That's pretty damning.

This shitty embarrasment of a speech was to keep himself from being subpeonad by that snakejew Nadler in the House by giving him what he wanted to hear anyway. I garuntee they were colluding, because he came out immediately after giddy as a clam with his own prepared statements. Why would anybody be happy if someone says they refuse to testify? But Nadler was. Because it was a set up.

It's up to the Senate to grill this weasels. The Senate and Barr are racing against the cover up and impeachment weasels in the FBI, DOJ, CIA and the Democrat party. If they get away with the crimes they commited, this nation is basically fucked until the end of its days.

It's not a prosecutors job prove innocence; they prove guilt.
Mueller couldn't prove guilt so because of how our legal system works, we presume innocence.

>kike leftist shill posing as le radical centrist
We're gonna burn you with a tire, nigger style

Attached: Hello fellow goyim.jpg (255x206, 17K)

He broke ethics rules within every state Bar Association and the DOJ. He should be disbarred immediately. Not only that, but it was his responsibility to recommend impeachment proceedings begin or not in his findings. He did neither because all the crimes were committed by those trying to bring Trump down. The whole Weissman Dossier is retarded legalese to make it seem that Congress should keep investigating everything and everyone related to Trump, even though that just happened over two years and no crimes were found. Expect Pelosi to announce an impeachment inquiry June 3. Then it's really going to get entertaining.

Dumbass there is nothing to impeach him on. No crime.

>which said that the Mueller report exonerated Trump
It did no such thing, you lying kike.

user don't be fucking retarded. The difference between crime and not crime in that shit is not down to a thought in their head/motive. In this case it is. If he did it to stop the investigation it's obstruction, if he did it for any other reason it's not. There's suggestive/suspicious circumstances but not something to convict on, hence the "can't determine that the President committed a crime, but does not exonerate him", because it comes down to the thoughts in Trumps head when he did it rather than the act itself.

He was born in Hawaii, the Kenya birth certificate was fake as Kenya didn't even exist as a country when the birth certificate was dated, it was a British colony at the time. I think I can safely write off anything you say because you're a fucking moron.

It's a hypothetical, since the motive is the line between crime and not crime. I suggested if he were to make a statement that made his motive clear and undeniable, would you consider it crime, not based on your political affiliations, but based on your knowledge of the law.

That doesn't excuse obstruction of justice. If he really felt that Flynn had been wronged by the justice system he can pardon Flynn after conviction, or, the jury finds him innocent anyway. But stopping an investigation where there are indictments because he's a friend and you want to protect him? Obstruction.

Now if he fired him for any other reason, knowing full well that the investigation would continue after Comey's firing, that'd not be obstruction, or if he made something clear like fired Comey and then instructed his replacement to continue the investigation, showing clearly that Comey was NOT fired in an attempt to halt the investigation, that would have exonerated him.

Because he was dumb enough to have a meeting with a foreign representative who offered dirt on Hillary Clinton. The dumbass should have smelled sting from a mile away, but he's retarded, so he got caught in it. Unfortunately, sting/set up or not if it violates law they can prosecute for it. I think sting operations should be illegal because it's entrapment but.. That's currently how the law goes.

SJWs and the anti Trump establishment will accept nothing besides guilt. The actual multi year investigation did not prove anything but by not letting the investigation go away, Trump can still be accused of wrong doing and/or incriminate himself via tweeter tantrums...

Mamma mia!

his motive is irrelevant.
it's neither unlawful, nor unwise, to only hire loyal staff.

Article 2 Section 1 says no.
that would be exercising executive Power.

He means Trump is colluding with Jews and he wants it exposed.

doesnt mean mueller cant say he committed a crime. but he didnt, did he? faggot

Can’t exonerate a person that was never charged worth a crime

imagine being so retarded you get your political info from corporate media

Attached: operationmockingbird.jpg (480x360, 46K)

Then the president can never be charged with obstruction of justice in articles of impeachment but there is legal precedence for it. If it was used to try Bill Clinton, then it can be used against Trump as well. You don't get to decide to apply the law or not based on partisanship.

Public servants should be loyal to the nation, not to it's temporary office holder. Military swears an oath to the constitution, not the president as well.

>Jewish friend
Harris is the only thing worse than a Jew: a secular Jew.

The Justice system, once the greatest achievement of America (more important than the 2nd Amendment, because the bill of rights relies on the Justice system’s fair and impartial behavior), is no more. Why? Go look up a list of new lawyers who passed the bar today. Look up a list of lawyers who just became judges this year. You will notice a pure coincidence.

You might be right. It seems to say that Mueller's report says there isn't enough evidence that Trump committed a crime. In other words, it basically says he's still innocent, since he hasn't been proven guilty. Mueller's report apparently implies that he is guilty. I haven't read the full report, so I don't know if it actually does.

The part Barr quoted was probably from this paragraph in the report:
>Fourth, 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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

It doesn't really look like Barr misquoted, so the part that implies Trump committed crimes would have to be somewhere else in the report, if it exists.

>You don't get to decide to apply the law or not based on partisanship
Tell that to the goddamn Democrats; they still don't seem to understand that they can't have grand jury information.

Hes butthurt over Trump not giving him his money back when he moved away from one of Trumps golf courses.

>supports the president who moved the Embassy to Jerusalem and has been pro Israel to the point of being sickening.
>calls any opponents Zionists
you make absolutely 0 fucking sense. Are you connected to reality at all? Trump is the goodest of goys, the most pro Israel president we've ever had. His Daughter is converted to Judaism so his grandchildren are Jewish and one of his top advisors is his Jewish son in law, and his national security advisor is a fucking Guardian of Zion award recipient.

Even during campaigning he made the claims "No candidate is as pro Israel as I am". You should have seen it then but you still try to claim "muh 8D chess, he's gonna name the jew any day now and go full 14/88". You're retarded if at this point you still cling to that denial. Face it, if you are pro Trump, you are pro Zionist, and you will support his war on Iran that Israel is goading us into.

Attached: Trump Israel Parade.jpg (592x434, 89K)

>Then the president can never be charged with obstruction of justice in articles of impeachment but there is legal precedence for it.
you are conflating two different things.
you can file articles of impeachment for no reason at all; there's no requirement to start filing that paperwork.
to actually have impeachment go through, nothing more is required than votes.
impeachment is not a criminal trial, it is a bureaucratic procedure to remove someone from office--no one goes to prison for being impeached.
>If it was used to try Bill Clinton, then it can be used against Trump as well.
it wasn't. Bill Clinton wasn't on trial. Bill Clinton was impeached.
again, you are confusing the two things. Republicans didn't like Bill Clinton, so they used impeachment to make him look bad. Now, the Democrats are doing the same thing. None of this is good for the people.
>Public servants should be loyal to the nation, not to it's temporary office holder. Military swears an oath to the constitution, not the president as well.
great. that includes Article 2 Section 1.

In order to exonerate a charge has to be brought forward first. I hate this new trend of normies using legal terms which they have no idea the meaning of.

Here's the Barr letter and Mueller report if anyone's interested.

judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/AG March 24 2019 Letter to House and Senate Judiciary Committees.pdf
justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

FBI kills babies at waco
FBI kills babies at Ruby Ridge
FBI kills belligerent elderly man Lavoy Finicum

Comey Fired. Strzok Fired. Mccabe Fired. Mueller powerless thus butthurt and belligerent.

Mueller shuts down Lobbyists corrupting washington across the aisle with the halloween indictments including Paul Manafort.

Although there are casualties of good men here they may receive a pardon. This is the ripple effect crossing the party lines. Seeking a re election is at an all time low. There's just no money in it. They accidentally drained the swamp.

Attached: 3q9EKNw.jpg (225x225, 17K)

>Tell that to the goddamn Democrats
I do.
One of the most bizzare things about being an independent is that to my steadfast Republican family and friends I'm the most liberal person they know, but simultaneously to my "progressive" liberal friends I'm this die hard far right conservative because I like guns and hold to "shall not be infringed" and tell them Hillary Clinton would had been just as awful of a President as Trump in different ways (we'd be looking at war in Ukraine rather than Iran)

Reality is on every political compass I've taken I've ended up Centrist Libertarian. I think it's hypocritical to support states rights for abortion and denying gay marriage, but put the big ugly federal government boot to squash states that decide to legalize cannabis. Either you're for states rights or you're not, and I'm for states rights.

Exonerated means that someone is proven innocent when the real criminal is caught. The real criminal was not caught, so by definition trump was not exonerated. He was however, proven innocent.
This is nothing more than word play. Dems love word play.

Here's another
>Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. 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. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Bingo. Exonerate is prove innocence, but in this case he would be impeached/tried and found "not guilty", which is distinctly different from "innocent" or "exonerated" "not guilty" just means there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. There's reasonable doubt so he's not guilty, but you can't claim exonerated which is what Trump has been toting it as.

you keep confusing impeachment with a trial.
the two things are different things.
from here:
thoughtco.com/impeachment-the-unthinkable-process-3322171
> Key Takeaways: Impeachment Process
> The process of impeachment is established by the U.S. Constitution.
> The impeachment process must be initiated in the House of Representatives with the passage of a resolution listing the charges or “Articles of Impeachment” against the official being impeached.
> If passed by the House, the Articles of Impeachment are considered by the Senate in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the 100 Senators serving as the jury.
> If the Senate votes in favor of conviction by a 2/3 supermajority vote (67 votes), the Senate will then vote to remove the official from office.

there is no requirement for a crime to have been committed.
there is no trial.
only votes.
it's a popularity contest decided by a supermajority, not an issue of justice.

He literally said he would not say he committed a crime because there can be no trial because you can't indict a president. The word indict is fucking synonymous with accuse. You can keep running around in circles crying about "innocent until proven guilty", but the fact is you need a trial to formerly prove guilt, and you can't have a trial on the President until he has been impeached. This was all very clearly spelled out by Mueller.

I always knew the people on Jow Forums were fucking retarded but the inability to understand these very clear and very basic points by so many fucking people blows my mind. Anyone with any amount sanity left needs to get the fuck off of this board before your brain rots and you end up like the rest of these faggots

They used the dictionary definition, which is to clear someone of wrong doing. If you say someone's innocent, you're clearing someone of wrong doing in the eyes of the public. That's probably not how the term is supposed to be used, though.