OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[travestyny]

There is no exoneration, because at this point, there is nothing to be exonerated for. We can't even say collusion occured, period, much less to say Trump is innocent or guilty.

Then that begs the question. If there is no exoneration, why is Trump saying there was a full exoneration? What's the use of going back and forth about this?

The statement from the report, as far as I know, is:

“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,” Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Sounds to me that the issue is still not clear, and it was Barr who interpreted the info. in his own way. Obviously that is not ideal.

This is like saying, "Is Trump guilty of murdering Hilliary Clinton?" How can Trump be anything but innocent, until we can show something even happened to be guilty of?

Look at the quotation from Mueller above and you will get it.

[GGG Gloveking]

Then that begs the question. If there is no exoneration, why is Trump saying there was a full exoneration? What's the use of going back and forth about this?

The statement from the report, as far as I know, is:

“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,” Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Sounds to me that the issue is still not clear, and it was Barr who interpreted the info. in his own way. Obviously that is not ideal.




Look at the quotation from Mueller above and you will get it.

Can they say that any criminal activity occured? What crime are we even talking about? Can we show that a crime even occured?

Once we get to that point, then we can start talking guilt, innocence, exoneration, etc. Right now, were still at, "we're not sure if anything happened"

[travestyny]

Nadler refused because it’s not about the report. There is nothing in the report. Their goal is to make noise, and try to attack Barr’s credibility because now it’s Barr’s turn to counter-investigate all the corrupt establishment politicians who tried to overturn Trump’s lawful election. Can you step back, look at what is happening, and get it?

I'm willing to take a step back and get it. But I'll only do so when I have all the facts.

Mueller said himself that the report wasn't an exoneration of Trump. Doesn't that mean the evidence should be looked at more closely?

You didn't supply me with any facts there. You can't just expect me to blindly believe things. Here is what I found:

The six Democrats to whom Barr offered access to the report boycotted en masse, complaining that Barr should have provided a fully unredacted report to a broader set of lawmakers investigating Trump’s conduct. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has subpoenaed Barr and the Justice Department for the full report and Mueller’s underlying evidence. The deadline for compliance is May 1.

So again, they are asking for the unredacted report. What's the issue with that?

[travestyny]

Can they say that any criminal activity occured? What crime are we even talking about? Can we show that a crime even occured?

Once we get to that point, then we can start talking guilt, innocence, exoneration, etc. Right now, were still at, "we're not sure if anything happened"

The report outlines the evidence of obstruction, I believe. The problem is that decisions were made based upon the review of one person who seems overwhelmingly biased toward the president.

I think that's the whole point. Dems are asking for an unredacted version to see if there was a crime committed or not.

[GGG Gloveking]

The report outlines the evidence of obstruction, I believe. The problem is that decisions were made based upon the review of one person who seems overwhelmingly biased toward the president.

I think that's the whole point. Dems are asking for an unredacted version to see if there was a crime committed or not.

Ok, well if we get to the point where we can say with a certainty that a crime has been committed, then we can start using terms such as suspect, and subsequently defendant.

[travestyny]

Ok, well if we get to the point where we can say with a certainty that a crime has been committed, then we can start using terms such as suspect, and subsequently defendant.

Of course. The only reason that court cases were brought up is because another person here said something like Trump was completely innocent due to a lack of evidence.

The only point on this matter was that a lack of evidence wouldn't prove him completely innocent even if it were in court, and certainly we can't say that he is completely innocent or that there was an exoneration.

It's the POTUS that has been saying it and has you guys mimicking him. Most others looking at things rationally realize that the POTUS in the least misspoke and in the most, lied.

[Rockin']

I'm willing to take a step back and get it. But I'll only do so when I have all the facts.

Mueller said himself that the report wasn't an exoneration of Trump. Doesn't that mean the evidence should be looked at more closely?

Evidence of what ……...Rockin'

[travestyny]

Evidence of what ……...Rockin'

The evidence regarding obstruction of justice.

[Rockin']

The evidence regarding obstruction of justice.

The Demorats are guilty of just about everything that they are accusing Trump of. ……...Rockin'

[travestyny]

The Demorats are guilty of just about everything that they are accusing Trump of. ……...Rockin'

That may be true. I didn't think that was the discussion here. You should start a thread and post up the facts!