Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge him

[_ajax18]

We are trying to work out what Mueller intended to convey when his used the 'not confident he is innocent' formulation in his recent public statement.

Then let me work it out for you. The Democrats were disappointed with the initial report. Nadler probably went to Mueller and said we need you to testify before congress and help us take Trump down. Mueller did not want to testify before congress because he didn't want congressional Republicans investigating the investigation. When Mueller declined, Nadler said, then you have to give us something more to help our cause. Hence we get the statement, "We can't know for sure that Trump did not commit a crime."

Imagine if the DoJ could indict a sitting president. Our elections would be meaningless. When a president is elected who is not supported by the DoJ, any one of them could just make up a case and render the executive branch of government impotent.

[_Gray Ghost]

We are trying to work out what Mueller intended to convey when his used the 'not confident he is innocent' formulation in his recent public statement.

Then let me work it out for you. The Democrats were disappointed with the initial report. Nadler probably went to Mueller and said we need you to testify before congress and help us take Trump down. Mueller did not want to testify before congress because he didn't want congressional Republicans investigating the investigation. When Mueller declined, Nadler said, then you have to give us something more to help our cause. Hence we get the statement, "We can't know for sure that Trump did not commit a crime."

Imagine if the DoJ could indict a sitting president. Our elections would be meaningless. When a president is elected who is not supported by the DoJ, any one of them could just make up a case and render the executive branch of government impotent.

This brilliant analysis brought to you by www.altrightincelfightinthedeepstateznews.ru

[_Kevin Graham]

Then let me work it out for you. The Democrats were disappointed with the initial report.

Uh, the Democrats were vindicated by the report.

Nadler probably went to Mueller and said we need you to testify before congress and help us take Trump down.

Stupid. And based on no evidence whatsoever.

Mueller did not want to testify before congress because he didn't want congressional Republicans investigating the investigation.

Like you investigated Benghazi six times for nothing? Even Trey Gowdy and Alan Dershowitz said there is no there there on the "investigate the investigators" meme that was conjured up by none other than Sean Hannity.

When Mueller declined, Nadler said, then you have to give us something more to help our cause. Hence we get the statement, "We can't know for sure that Trump did not commit a crime."

Or, you know, if you had read the report when it was first released you'd know that Mueller had already said this. But you never read the report. Because you're a useless mouth breather.

Imagine if the DoJ could indict a sitting president. Our elections would be meaningless. When a president is elected who is not supported by the DoJ, any one of them could just make up a case and render the executive branch of government impotent.

Or.... imagine if the President of the United States just started shooting people in the streets. No one could stop him because only impeachment works, right? WHile we're waiting for that to play out, he starts shooting more people claiming he has top secret information proving they're a threat to national security. The only way to hold him accountable is a long process of impeachment which would never happen if the House or Senate is compromised by party loyalty, which is the case right now in the Senate.

You're just a very dumb person.

[_canpakes]

Imagine if the DoJ could indict a sitting president. Our elections would be meaningless. When a president is elected who is not supported by the DoJ, any one of them could just make up a case and render the executive branch of government impotent.

I’m curious why you believe that the DoJ would simply, as a body, decide to not support a newly elected President. Regardless, what you propose here - as a sort of massive conspiracy to be committed by someone(s) for reasons you haven’t thought out enough to plausibly identify - is neither as easy as you want to believe it is, nor worth that sort of convoluted effort if the main purpose was to simply be rid of that candidate.

I’m beginning to worry about my conservative friends and acquaintances as they slide ever deeper into an alternate world of mistruths and conspiracy while craning their necks to avoid seeing such things as simple facts and rational observations.

[_moksha]

Mueller did not want to testify before Congress because he didn't want congressional Republicans investigating the investigation.

Sounds like you may have a bad batch of Kool-Aid. Try switching to cherry or lime.

[_moksha]

... the jury or judge, respectively, is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be morally convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the proofs sufficient for a conviction.

That verdict seems to fit Mueller's situation quite well.

That is interesting. I would have chosen the expression "Miscarriage of Justice" where no charge is made against the guilty over some blanket policy amounting to a get out of jail free card.

[_Res Ipsa]

We are trying to work out what Mueller intended to convey when his used the 'not confident he is innocent' formulation in his recent public statement.

Then let me work it out for you. The Democrats were disappointed with the initial report. Nadler probably went to Mueller and said we need you to testify before congress and help us take Trump down. Mueller did not want to testify before congress because he didn't want congressional Republicans investigating the investigation. When Mueller declined, Nadler said, then you have to give us something more to help our cause. Hence we get the statement, "We can't know for sure that Trump did not commit a crime."

Imagine if the DoJ could indict a sitting president. Our elections would be meaningless. When a president is elected who is not supported by the DoJ, any one of them could just make up a case and render the executive branch of government impotent.

Psst, Ajax, Congress can undo a presidential election anytime it chooses. They don’t have to even prove a crime beyond reasonable doubt. That ability doesn’t make elections meaningless. Of course, you’re on the team that has no qualms about making crap up— like the President does daily — so naturally you expect the other team to do so.