For the Trump supporter who can't read...

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Now there's no excuse to make claims about it saying things it doesn't say.

Get The Mueller Report Free on Audible

 

[Salvador]

Now there's no excuse to make claims about it saying things it doesn't say.

Get The Mueller Report Free on Audible

I've read AG William Barr's summary of the Mueller report that states ... "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."... and ... "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

 

[Woberts]

Your descriptor is unnecessary.

 

[ecco]

I've read AG William Barr's summary of the Mueller report that states ...

Why quote from a biased summary rather than directly from the report?

 

[Father Heathen]

Why quote from a biased summary rather than directly from the report?

Because an honest, objective approach is detrimental to his ideology and narrative.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I've read AG William Barr's summary of the Mueller report that states ... "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."... and ... "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

And now there's no excuse to keep claiming the report says it says things it doesn't say. You don't even have to read it yourself. It's on audible, for free.

 

[tytlyf]

I've read AG William Barr's summary of the Mueller report that states ... "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."... and ... "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

Don't you watch the news? Barr misrepresented the report. Want details? Didn't think so..

 

[We Never Know]

Now there's no excuse to make claims about it saying things it doesn't say.

Get The Mueller Report Free on Audible

You are reading what they want you to read. Think of it this way, if they are showing a rated R movie on local TV, first thing they do it edit it/cut parts out of it's content.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You are reading what they want you to read. Think of it this way, if they are showing a rated R movie on local TV, first thing they do it edit it/cut parts out of it's content.

*eyeroll*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've read AG William Barr's summary of the Mueller report that states ... "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."... and ... "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

Then why did Mueller write his report does not indict or exonerate Trump? Why did his investigation set into motion several additional investigations?

 

[Father Heathen]

You are reading what they want you to read. Think of it this way, if they are showing a rated R movie on local TV, first thing they do it edit it/cut parts out of it's content.

Any proof or evidence that this has been tampered with?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've read AG William Barr's summary of the Mueller report that states ... "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."... and ... "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

Who cares what Barr's summary says? I'd rather read/hear the actual report, wouldn't you?

 

[Stanyon]

Then why did Mueller write his report does not indict or exonerate Trump? Why did his investigation set into motion several additional investigations?

Best whodunnit ever! Maybe Mueller is the real "Mr. Big" and he has been working for Russia all along, by doing so he caused more division thus undermining our democracy. This worked out better than the Santa Clauses in New York with Trump masks on- and the U.S. taxpayer paid for it all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Best whodunnit ever!

Then you are blind, or stupid, or both, because Mueller himself did write his investigation did NOT exonerate Trump.

 

[Stanyon]

Mueller himself did write his investigation did NOT exonerate Trump.

Nor did we have any new indictments

A little thing about the Constitution and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty

would it kill you to say Trump is innocent until further notice?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Nor did we have any new indictments

A little thing about the Constitution and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty

would it kill you to say Trump is innocent until further notice?

*cough cough* lock her up *cough*

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Then you are blind, or stupid, or both,

Don't forget dishonest.

 

[Stanyon]

*cough cough* lock her up *cough*

Lock who up?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nor did we have any new indictments

But we do have new investigations in multiple jurisdictions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Lock who up?

You know damn well.