Mueller did not exonerate trump on obstruction

christiefan915 said:
<sigh> Guess you didn't read the report. Barr didn't say there was no evidence. He said the evidence developed was not sufficient to charge trump with obstruction. Do you understand that "none" isn't the same as "not enough"?

Btw SF that decision was essentially the same one Comey made in deciding not to prosecute Hillary over the emails.
Click to expand...

So, then both Hillary and Trump were exonerated.

**************

ex·on·er·ate
/iɡˈzänəˌrāt/
verb
verb: exonerate; 3rd person present: exonerates; past tense: exonerated; past participle: exonerated; gerund or present participle: exonerating

1.
(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.

I'd say that Trump was exonerated and absolved...especially after a 2 year consideration of a case.
 
Stretch said:
So, then both Hillary and Trump were exonerated.

**************

ex·on·er·ate
/iɡˈzänəˌrāt/
verb
verb: exonerate; 3rd person present: exonerates; past tense: exonerated; past participle: exonerated; gerund or present participle: exonerating

1.
(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.

I'd say that Trump was exonerated and absolved...especially after a 2 year consideration of a case.
Click to expand...

:palm: I did not say Hillary was exonerated, according to Comey's announcement.
 
christiefan915 said:
<sigh> Guess you didn't read the report. Barr didn't say there was no evidence. He said the evidence developed was not sufficient to charge trump with obstruction. Do you understand that "none" isn't the same as "not enough"?

Btw SF that decision was essentially the same one Comey made in deciding not to prosecute Hillary over the emails.
Click to expand...

LMAO... your understanding of how things work is quite sad.

First, if there is not enough evidence to charge for obstruction, that means just that. The case isn't there.

Second, as far as Comey is concerned: (a) Comey was head of the FBI... not the AG. It was not his fucking call. It was up to the AG. (b) Comey deliberately altered the wording in order to justify his 'no reasonable prosecutor would charge her'. he also decided his outcome BEFORE the investigation was complete. So no Christie... they are no where near the same.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... your understanding of how things work is quite sad.

First, if there is not enough evidence to charge for obstruction, that means just that. The case isn't there.

Second, as far as Comey is concerned: (a) Comey was head of the FBI... not the AG. It was not his fucking call. It was up to the AG. (b) Comey deliberately altered the wording in order to justify his 'no reasonable prosecutor would charge her'. he also decided his outcome BEFORE the investigation was complete. So no Christie... they are no where near the same.
Click to expand...

Your hackishness is quite sad. And you said exactly what I said, that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a case... not that there was NO evidence. Reread my comment until you understand.

Comey deliberately altered the wording... I know why the wording was altered. Do you? I bet not.
 
christiefan915 said:
Your hackishness is quite sad. And you said exactly what I said, that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a case... not that there was NO evidence. Reread my comment until you understand.

Comey deliberately altered the wording... I know why the wording was altered. Do you? I bet not.
Click to expand...

So, according to you:

Not having enough evidence means that there is evidence.??!!

:facepalm:
 
Comey decided in his own head that "no prosecutor would take the case". It wasn't his place to determine that. He wrote her exoneration letter months before. The fix was in. She got off.
 
christiefan915 said:
Your hackishness is quite sad. And you said exactly what I said, that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a case... not that there was NO evidence. Reread my comment until you understand.

Comey deliberately altered the wording... I know why the wording was altered. Do you? I bet not.
Click to expand...

No, I clarified what you said. You stated the situations were the same. They are not. Not even close. Comey was head of the FBI. It is not the FBI head that makes the call. It is the AG. Comey never should have said a fucking word. Yet he did. Barr is supposed to make the call if Mueller passed the buck.

Again, if you do not have the evidence to make the case, then your case was weak. The accusation was without merit. Pretending that because someone met a Russian is 'evidence' is nonsense.
 
Getin the ring said:
yea, he kinda did :rofl2:

no collusion and no indictments for anyone else recommended
that must hurt if you just spent two years of your life thinking otherwise

NUTBAGS
Click to expand...
Ask your Master to publish the Report if it is so good. At the moment he's coming over as a second Stalin.
 
Superfreak said:
No, I clarified what you said. You stated the situations were the same. They are not. Not even close. Comey was head of the FBI. It is not the FBI head that makes the call. It is the AG. Comey never should have said a fucking word. Yet he did. Barr is supposed to make the call if Mueller passed the buck.

Again, if you do not have the evidence to make the case, then your case was weak. The accusation was without merit. Pretending that because someone met a Russian is 'evidence' is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Again, you are speculating that the accusation was without merit. None of us know what's in the report. We just know there was some evidence but not enough to bring any charges against trump.

Re: your earlier comment about Comey altering the wording of his announcement, he changed it from "gross negligence" to "extremely careless" because gross negligence means "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party." That isn't what the Comey investigation found, no matter how much you wish he did.
 
Getin the ring said:
yea, he kinda did :rofl2:

no collusion and no indictments for anyone else recommended
that must hurt if you just spent two years of your life thinking otherwise

NUTBAGS
Click to expand...

If that's the case then trump should have no problem showing the report to the public with minimal redactions. But that's not going to happen because I suspect there's plenty in it that's highly unflattering to trump and his associates.
 
christiefan915 said:
Again, you are speculating that the accusation was without merit. None of us know what's in the report. We just know there was some evidence but not enough to bring any charges against trump.

Re: your earlier comment about Comey altering the wording of his announcement, he changed it from "gross negligence" to "extremely careless" because gross negligence means "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party." That isn't what the Comey investigation found, no matter how much you wish he did.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the merit of the accusations. There was not enough evidence.

Also... Comey changed the wording before interviewing Clinton. So, no, it wasn't due to what he found. It was due to what could be charged based on the wording.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top