4 ms·

Quoted from Volume II, page 182: ---- Conclusion Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions

by eCa 7y ago

Quoted from Volume II, page 182: ---- Conclusion Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

tmaly 7y ago
I don't know about you, but this investigation has been exhausting and extremely divisive for the country as a whole.. I think if no action is going to come out of this investigation, then its time for us to move on and think about bigger and better things.
- tim333 7y ago
  Not much chance of that before the 2020 elections.
  - majewsky 7y ago
    It will be interesting to see how the next president after Trump handles this matter (whether in 2021 or in 2025). I think there's a nonzero chance that even a Democratic president would pardon Trump in the name of national unity.
LyndsySimon 7y ago
This seems a good summary to me. After all, you cannot prove a negative.
- mcphage 7y ago
  It goes farther than that: > At the same time, 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. So if it looks like he didn't commit obstruction of justice, they would have said that. They can't prove a negative, but if there hadn't been any evidence, they would have been willing to make a judgement that Trump was innocent. But they did find evidence, so they're unwilling to say he's not guilty of obstruction.
  - tim333 7y ago
    Yeah he probably tried to obstruct but they can't prove it.
    - mcphage 7y ago
      Seems like it’s “he tried to obstruct, here is the evidence, it’s Congress’s job to do something about it”
bliblah 7y ago
This conclusion is the one most prosecutors reach and still decide to pursuit a lawsuit since they could probably get a settlement or a plea bargain, In this case you can't since the law / constitution is very murky when it comes to prosecuting the President and the extent that executive privilege protects them. Outside of my personal opinion, it is very clear that this is will continue to be fought on purely political grounds. Damned be the laws and proper legislative procedures. Even the presentation of the document this morning was hyper politicized by both parties while the document does a noble attempt at neutrality.
- davvolun 7y ago
  You know who should determine if prosecution has basis to pursue? The courts, not the prosecution. Mueller and his team attempting to be neutral, in this case, plays into Trump and the GOPs side and thus the outcome becomes partisan, despite the intention.

by eCa 7y ago

tmaly 7y ago

I don't know about you, but this investigation has been exhausting and extremely divisive for the country as a whole.. I think if no action is going to come out of this investigation, then its time for us to move on and think about bigger and better things.

tim333 7y ago
Not much chance of that before the 2020 elections.
- majewsky 7y ago
  It will be interesting to see how the next president after Trump handles this matter (whether in 2021 or in 2025). I think there's a nonzero chance that even a Democratic president would pardon Trump in the name of national unity.

LyndsySimon 7y ago

This seems a good summary to me. After all, you cannot prove a negative.

mcphage 7y ago
It goes farther than that: > At the same time, 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. So if it looks like he didn't commit obstruction of justice, they would have said that. They can't prove a negative, but if there hadn't been any evidence, they would have been willing to make a judgement that Trump was innocent. But they did find evidence, so they're unwilling to say he's not guilty of obstruction.
- tim333 7y ago
  Yeah he probably tried to obstruct but they can't prove it.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    Seems like it’s “he tried to obstruct, here is the evidence, it’s Congress’s job to do something about it”

bliblah 7y ago

This conclusion is the one most prosecutors reach and still decide to pursuit a lawsuit since they could probably get a settlement or a plea bargain, In this case you can't since the law / constitution is very murky when it comes to prosecuting the President and the extent that executive privilege protects them. Outside of my personal opinion, it is very clear that this is will continue to be fought on purely political grounds. Damned be the laws and proper legislative procedures. Even the presentation of the document this morning was hyper politicized by both parties while the document does a noble attempt at neutrality.

davvolun 7y ago
You know who should determine if prosecution has basis to pursue? The courts, not the prosecution. Mueller and his team attempting to be neutral, in this case, plays into Trump and the GOPs side and thus the outcome becomes partisan, despite the intention.