| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I actually pointed out all discrepancies that took place during the Mueller investigation as the drama unfolded, just like I did with the Steele dossier. Some people were saying the Mueller Report never exonerated Trump when it clearly did, so that was actually a discussion about semantics, not about the facts of the matter which were already common knowledge before the report was even written.Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Yes that's exactly right. The word "exhonerated " is , ( technically wrongly), used to mean that an investigation has failed to reach a point where someone can be charged. We might say that an MP or alleged criminal under investigation has been " exhonerated" if the investigation fails to find evidence to charge them.
Of course this is common parlance for everyone else in the world and no one ever objects to it except in this case. If we take the word literally it means that whatever the allegation is against them has been absolutely disproved , but obviously this rarely or never happens in any investigation , due to the presumption of innocence.
It's equally obvious that it's usually hard or impossible to prove a negative , yet Mueller chooses to object to the word "exhonerated" when applied to the President. As far as I know he hasn't gone in for such semantic hair splitting when discussing investigations into the Mafia , terrorists or Hillary Clinton's email or other scandals .
It's a matter of spin on the part of the President's enemies , ( including Mueller), but you can't really expect people like tobw to grasp stuff like that ,which would require a wider knowledge of US politics than you'll get from the One Show or HIGNFY. What's more, he's inclined to accept stuff like this due to confirmation bias.
It's just perfect that you imply that tobw doesn't have the intelligence to understand these events whilst simultaneously being unable to correctly spell the word you based your entire post on - on three separate occasions.
You're my favourite poster by some distance these days and I just wanted to thank you for that. I'll always "exhonerate" you if others attack your posts.
It's quite common to spell it with an h, and that spelling appears in a lot of stuff, but now that you've pointed it out, it's not correct.
Well spotted though - very thorough. Can't get a miss spelling past you ?
Thorough
Oh, RB, you do make me laugh.
I only get to read his stuff when someone quotes it these days and I do miss him in a way because his superiority complex is so funny.
I was thinking "exhonerated" might be some obscure legal term that us plebs don't know about (after all, he is an intellectual you know), but I see it's showing as a misspelling on my computer - maybe the computer is wrong?
I don't seem to be able to do screenshots on this new computer of mine, but I've just Googled "Mueller denies exonerating Trump" - seems the author of the report didn't think he was exonerating the President.
You're correct Bob.
Mueller went into his investigation knowing that he would never charge the president. After that, he didn't find evidence of collusion because the White House simply didn't talk and didn't provide him the documents he asked for. Hence, there are about a dozen cases of obstruction of justice in the report. He specifically made the unusual comment that the investigation doesn't exhonerate trump because he knew that it would be spun that way.
The White House is doing the same for the impeachment enquiry; withholding documents, refusing subpoenas, etc. This is because they know it's far better for them to have an impeachment trial on some technicality than a trial with the evidence of what they've actually been doing
And they also know individually they will probably be alright and not face charges or prosecution. As in this country, there's an umbrella over those in powerful positions.
You crack me up mate, spreading the BS right up until the very end.
So what crime did he commit?
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/wh...t-obstruction/
Like I said it was an impeachment excercise or a PR campaign for impeachment. There was was no underlying crime, it was all manufactured. I sincerely hope that you never get investigated for a crime that you didn't commit, and they don't spent over two years using tremendous resources and dodgy methods, trying to catch you out on something you said or did while trying to defend yourself. It was a proper stitch up, or a whitch-hunt even! I can only assume that you condone this type of behaviour on political grounds, or just out of pure hatred?
So, we have your, in my view, deeply biased opinion of the individuals involved against the conclusions of a respected fact checking site, along with the testimony of the author of the report, when it comes to what the Mueller Report said. What I think is immaterial, but it does seem to me that there is enough there to at least doubt your take on the whole thing. All of which brings me back to my original point which is your rubbishing of the Mueller Report while at the same time claiming that it completely exonerated Donald Trump - it isn't just Boris Johnson who wants to have his cake and eat it!
My opinion is based on available evidence. If there was no underlying crime and the whole thing was manufactured, then what exactly was Mueller investigating?
The exoneration issue only came up because people like lardy were saying he wasn't exonerated, so obviously I had to challenge him on that statement as there was no predicate crime to begin with. This was a separate issue to the actual creation of the report, and only came about after the fact.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
