Mueller: NO collusion & NO Obstruction by Trump or Trump campaign

christiefan915 said:
Did you think I was denying that lol? You seem to be denying "while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Click to expand...

Well then BIG WHOOP! He's vindicated. It's over. Done. :cool:
Lucky little Hillary had Homey drafting HER exoneration letter even BEFORE he had interviewed her. And THAT was with her being "extremely grossly carelessly negligent". What a pack of thieves inside of THAT mess.
 
Mueller also said no conspiracy, which is ultimately the legal crime for collusion...

Poor Christiecrite...
 
It's MORE than just an exoneration of the entire Trump campaign team. It's an INDICTMENT of the higher ups in the FBI!

It's a good day tater. :awesome:
 
domer76 said:
Nope, not “in other words”, dumbfuck.

Once again, you fail basic English. And the concepts of law. As well as your three tard friends.

I dumbed it down as much as I could.
Click to expand...

Trump is innocent on all charges that were investigated. Period.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but please......where is all the evidence that you have been telling us Mueller has been keeping a secret from us all this time.......if its not there, doesn't THAT exonerate Trump?.......
Click to expand...

Excellent point! You'd think the Dems would be calling the likes Smallwell and Bloomenthal constantly screaming on CNN that THEY had evidence...actual evidence of collusion, conspiracy, dancing with, drinking iced tea and possible sunbathing with Russians.

Welllllllll Dems????? Are you all ringing their phones off the hook, demanding that they come out and refute the Mueller report? That those 2 guys should march into Barr's office and say, "HEY! Look at this! We have evidence!!!!!"
 
Yurt said:
Once again, is Trump PRESUMED innocent?

Yes or no?
Click to expand...

I went down this already, stupid fuck. Why do I always have to explain things multiple times for you?

In trial, someone is either guilty or not guilty. They are never found “innocent”. That description is for you clueless morons.

Idiots like you may “presume” many things. And, perhaps a judge may wish to hold your stupid hand. There are a few criteria going in, and I’m typing SLOWLY for you OOLISS.

1 - The state has the ENTIRE burden of proof for the alleged crime. BEYOND a reasonable doubt.
2 - The defendant has ZERO burden. No burden to speak, to present ANY evidence, to do ANYTHING.
3 - Most important, and this is where you idiots get things wrong. There is to be no negative inferences from the trier of fact. They are solely responsible for deciding on the evidence presented to them. A dumbfuck of your level may use the uneducated “presumed innocent”, but that is for you morons. There is no “innocent” in criminal law.
 
Last edited:
That's why the word exoneration isn't that important. All it means is innocent. Trump got vindication. No evidence found of conspiracy and obstruction. Nothing to prosecute.
Also, prosecutors always get that last jab in when they lose a case.....he/she is not exonerated.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
That's why the word exoneration isn't that important. All it means is innocent. Trump got vindication. No evidence found of conspiracy and obstruction. Nothing to prosecute.
Also, prosecutors always get that last jab in when they lose a case.....he/she is not exonerated.
Click to expand...

That’s not what Barr wrote...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top