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

[USFREEDOM911]

There were no charges for trump to be presumed innocent of, this was just the first stage, an investigation. Our opinion isn't a legal standard.

So there remains the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE!!

Thanks

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The only ones still bleating about the 2016 election are trump and RWNJs. That's in the rear view mirror for liberals. It's trump's uninformed, despicable hatred on display every effing day that's our concern.

So you have been ignoring all of Desh's whines.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

When was the trial??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

“The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.“

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, so Trump's innocent.

 

[domer76]

you IDIOT. that is EXACTLY what it means - no evidence to charge for a crime means there was no actionable crime!!

think it thru. if an investigation that doesn't result in an indictment is a crime then every criminal investigation EVER would be a crime!! morons

You have ZERO experience in court and law, don’t you?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Cite me a criminal case where the verdict was “innocent” versus “not guilty”

If this was a criminal case, when was the trial; because INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

 

[domer76]

[translation]

I couldn't find any evidence to support my suspicion(s); but BY GOD, I know he's guilty.

[/translation]

No “translation” for you who cannot understand the primary language.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You have ZERO experience in court and law, don’t you?

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. :good4u

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No “translation” for you who cannot understand the primary language.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

 

[Rune]

eat up you idiots!!

Wrong you fucking liar.

 

[Jarod]

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, so Trump's innocent.

In the exact same way Hillary is innocent.

 

[Jarod]

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

Right, the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction, according to Trumpper Barr.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Wrong again, ignorant shit.

Your lack of English comprehension and law is stunning.

 

[Rune]

The words were not “no evidence”. Barr wrote there was not sufficient evidence. Understand the difference?

He understands but doesn't care because it doesn't fit his narrative of lies.

 

[Rune]

Have you forgotten who wrote the memo to Trump that Comey be fired lol?

Could this whole charade be any more jacked-up? How can Rosenstein recommend Trump be charged with obstruction *when he wrote the fricking memo* to Trump?!

This just needs to stop right here. It’s getting ridiculous. It’s over.

Cry harder dumbfuck.
It isn't nearly over.

 

[Jarod]

“The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.“

 

[Earl]

No collusion, no proof of obstruction.

Ya esta.

 

[Jarod]

No collusion, no proof of obstruction.

Ya esta.

“The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.“

 

[Stretch]

Right, the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction, according to Trumpper Barr.

IT'S OVER...INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

 

[reagansghost]

sorry, we still haven't seen Mueller's report

what the fuck are you talking about?