The Mueller Report On-Line and Downloadable

The story keeps changing. If they indicted Russians that has nothing to do with Trump but it's always been about getting Trump one way or another. They don't even really need a reason, they're going to get him for anything they can dream up.

No changes. Not indicted is no exonerated.There's overwhelming evidence for Trump's real transgressions. No dreaming required.

so Trump's deputy AG was doing the bidding of the Democratic party when he authorized the Mueller investigation?

Yes.

Trump has committed no transgressions, they've all been invented by his enemies. They don't like him, they object to his style and they make that into criminal activities which they are not. Yes it is all dreamed up. Yes, in an investigative report like the Mueller report which existed for the sole purpose of discovering if there was any crimtinal activity on Trump's part, no indictment is exoneration.

boy the guy who hired him must've been pretty dumb

why do you keep lying about this?

I'm not the one lying. Everybody on my side knows this, it's only those on the left who persist in believing a lie. Some are lying, most just believe them.

What does the evidence show? After all the guy that hired him was the guy that could not even make a success out of casinos, a game show and beauty pageants.

He has been pretty dumb about trusting the wrong people, letting traitors remain in the White House among other things.

To everyone:Though this message is a reply to JonF, it is really addressed to all participants in this thread. I didn't expect a discussion to break out in the Links and Information forum, but so be it, and I will moderate. The information which was posted is in Message 1 and so is easy to find.Discussion in this thread should be topic focused and impersonal. Words used to attack or denigrate others in the discussion will be added to the poster's disallowed words list. For example, the following would result in the words "vomit*", "bushwah" and "Trumpistas" being added to the disallowed word list: I of course will not begin doing this right away. I'll wait for people to have a chance to see this message. If you can't help yourself please keep in mind that this approach to moderation can result in some pretty common words getting added to your disallowed word list. For example, "It's all idiots on the right," would result in not just "idiot*" getting added to your list, but also "right," which would become a bit inconvenient.Participants who insist on posting messages with asterisks will be suspended.

Wondering: I discovered earlier that I'm not allowed to edit messages any more. Is that connected with taking away words?

Could you explain what you mean by "persisting in posting messages with asterisks?" Usually the words are quite neutral in themselves and may be necessary to expressing something neutral and simple. Are you saying we can't use them this way after you've taken away words for how they were used somewhere else? I'm serious, I'm having a problem understanding this. I usually don't know what post the word first occurred in you found to be offensive.

Faith, I agree The conclusion was a bunch of weasel words to get around - imho - the restriction AG Barr put on the probe to not indict a sitting president. Barr was their boss, so they had to comply. No. Sadly they were not allowed to pursue indictments for the 12 cases of obstruction of justice they discovered evidence for, and they were not allowed to pursue indictments for the instances of involvement with Russia to affect the election --- by AG Barr and his insistence that a sitting president could no be indicted. Barr was their boss, so they had to comply.Not being allowed to indict means the cases could not be tested in court, not that they were unable to prove them. You can't prove or disprove a case you are not allowed to pursue.All they could do was report their findings, listing each case where they found evidence, and leave it to congress to determine whether or not congress should proceed with impeachment to try those cases. No it doesn't. You are grasping prematurely at straws of imagination. What you have demonstrated in this (and your following posts) is that you can't handle the truth, even when it is simple.Starr was not hampered by an AG with an unorthodox concept of excessive presidential rights that was trying to stop him, and even still he didn't prove the cases of obstruction of justice that he gave to the congress, he gave them a list of incidences which they used to write up articles of impeachment and which were then tried in the Senate.Where we are with the Mueller report and with the investigation by the House is assembling what charges will be included in the articles of impeachment. You can't jump ahead of that.We now have the unusual case where the accused has been given (after much whining and whimpering and pounding of his flabby chest) an opportunity to participate in that decision on what will be included in the articles of impeachment ... unusual because normally an accused purported perpetrator is not given a chance to discuss what he is being charged with by the prosecutor. Immaterial now, because coward Dumbty Trumpty had his bluff called and he passed.Trump has been given plenty of opportunities to provide exculpatory evidence if he has any. Again he has not taken that opportunity, likely because he doesn't have any.We also have the unusual case where the accused purported perpetrator is given a chance to discuss how the trial will be run with the jury (Senate), that he has also wined and dined. In any normal legal trial this would be called tampering with the jury. In common ordinary terminology this is corrupt.This is serious, Faith, and you need to come out of your shell and look at the facts and the evidence and ask yourself: if this were Obama instead of Trump, what would you say.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Trump was not indicted solely because of a DOJ administrative opinion. If it were only a question of breaking the law he would have been indicted for multiple crimes.That is, he got off on a technicality. He's guilty.That's not exoneration in law or in public opinion.