"Did you actually totally exonerate the President? No."

So what Mueller said charges were not brought based on his team did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump committed a crime, rather than because Justice Department policy stipulates that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Here's what Mueller actually said:

BUCK: Was there sufficient evidence to convict president of Drumpf or anyone else of obstruction of justice?
MUELLER: We did not make that calculation.
BUCK: Why not?
MUELLER: Because of the OLC opinion that states the president can't be charged with a crime.
 
Former special counsel Robert Mueller said he needed to revise his testimony before Congress on July 24, asserting some earlier statements had been misleading.

Reappearing on Capitol Hill after a lunch break, Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee: “Before we go to questions, I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning.”

“I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by [Rep. Ted] Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller added.

“As we say in the report and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
https://news.ntd.com/mueller-correct...tion_361180.ht

He corrected his statement after he was reminded, three (3) times of his statement to Barr.

Indeed.
 
Mueller: No proof of collusion with Russia or obstruction by ...
www.jamaicalivenews.com/2019/03/mueller-no-proof...

AG Barr says evidence ‘not sufficient’ to prosecute After years of continued investigations and allegations, the verdict is in. Special counsel Robert Mueller found no proof that President Donald Trump criminally colluded with Russia and conclude there is no conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice, Attorney General William Barr told Congress on Sunday.

A/G Barr is the decision maker.

"Case closed." McConnell
 
There is no "Office of Exoneration."

Innocent until proven guilty. The bedrock of American jurisprudence.
 
“The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.

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.

Exactly I am surprised you actually posted this part you moron!
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Reasonable doubt you dolt! Go back to your padded cell in Moms basement you drain on society!
 
Here's what Mueller actually said:

BUCK: Was there sufficient evidence to convict president of Drumpf or anyone else of obstruction of justice?
MUELLER: We did not make that calculation.
BUCK: Why not?
MUELLER: Because of the OLC opinion that states the president can't be charged with a crime.

He clarified that later that is not why he didn't press charges he found no reason to! My Gosh man, you are a special kind of stupid, seek help!!!!!!
 
Former special counsel Robert Mueller said he needed to revise his testimony before Congress on July 24, asserting some earlier statements had been misleading.

Reappearing on Capitol Hill after a lunch break, Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee: “Before we go to questions, I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning.”

“I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by [Rep. Ted] Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller added.

“As we say in the report and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
https://news.ntd.com/mueller-correct...tion_361180.ht

He corrected his statement after he was reminded, three (3) times of his statement to Barr.

Indeed.

Yes, thank you, hey idiot socialist pigs, read this, this is a direct quote.
 
There is clearly sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice.

Then why did the man running the show not say that, and i am not talking about Mueller, I am talking about that former Clinton aid, the one who actually wrote the decision that much was evident. The OLC was not the rerason as Mueller said!
 
So what Mueller said charges were not brought based on his team did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump committed a crime, rather than because Justice Department policy stipulates that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
his words not mine you imbecile go collect your unemployment check sit down and STFU like Michael Moore commanded you to

Wrong again, idiot. Try to grasp the language. It’s not “rather”, stupid fuck. It’s “because”

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining “that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

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.
 
Nope saying you can't act because you will end up looking like bigger asses than you already have. The OLC had no bearing Mueller clarified that! Keep grasping at straws as Trumps numbers go up please, impeach, please.

Have a literate person explain this to you.

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining “that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

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.
 
Exactly I am surprised you actually posted this part you moron!
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Reasonable doubt you dolt! Go back to your padded cell in Moms basement you drain on society!

Not on criminal trial, you fucking idiot. “Reasonable doubt” is irrelevant.

You fuckers just CANNOT grasp these concepts, can you? :rofl2:
 
Then why did the man running the show not say that, and i am not talking about Mueller, I am talking about that former Clinton aid, the one who actually wrote the decision that much was evident. The OLC was not the rerason as Mueller said!

Because he is bound by Justice Department rules against commenting on the guilt of un-indicted people.
 
Sure can.

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.

There was no reason to obstruct, you brain dead moron on steroids.

Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Barr: 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.
 
Last edited:
“The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.

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.

Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Barr: 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.
 
Back
Top