Trump and exoneration
Jul 24, 2019 17:45:09 #
If exonerate means to absolve someone from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case (2+ years, 500 witnesses, $30 million), wouldn't that mean that Mueller's investigation did, in fact, exonerate President Trump? Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to win the e******n. Mueller found that not to be true. To me, that is a classic definition of the word exonerate.
Jul 24, 2019 17:58:12 #
EmilyD wrote:
If exonerate means to absolve someone from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case (2+ years, 500 witnesses, $30 million), wouldn't that mean that Mueller's investigation did, in fact, exonerate President Trump? Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to win the e******n. Mueller found that not to be true. To me, that is a classic definition of the word exonerate.
Amen and Amen
Jul 24, 2019 18:08:44 #
EmilyD wrote:
If exonerate means to absolve someone from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case (2+ years, 500 witnesses, $30 million), wouldn't that mean that Mueller's investigation did, in fact, exonerate President Trump? Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to win the e******n. Mueller found that not to be true. To me, that is a classic definition of the word exonerate.
Libs Don’t use the same dictionary
Jul 24, 2019 18:56:23 #
EmilyD wrote:
If exonerate means to absolve someone from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case (2+ years, 500 witnesses, $30 million), wouldn't that mean that Mueller's investigation did, in fact, exonerate President Trump? Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to win the e******n. Mueller found that not to be true. To me, that is a classic definition of the word exonerate.
Now, let’s talk about obstruction
Jul 24, 2019 18:56:45 #
EmilyD wrote:
If exonerate means to absolve someone from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case (2+ years, 500 witnesses, $30 million), wouldn't that mean that Mueller's investigation did, in fact, exonerate President Trump? Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to win the e******n. Mueller found that not to be true. To me, that is a classic definition of the word exonerate.
not good enough for the proglibs 
Jul 24, 2019 18:57:10 #
Jul 24, 2019 19:21:12 #
EmilyD wrote:
If exonerate means to absolve someone from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case (2+ years, 500 witnesses, $30 million), wouldn't that mean that Mueller's investigation did, in fact, exonerate President Trump? Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to win the e******n. Mueller found that not to be true. To me, that is a classic definition of the word exonerate.
Mueller testified, under oath, that: The investigation was not obstructed.
The End.
Jul 24, 2019 19:21:55 #
EmilyD wrote:
If exonerate means to absolve someone from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case (2+ years, 500 witnesses, $30 million), wouldn't that mean that Mueller's investigation did, in fact, exonerate President Trump? Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to win the e******n. Mueller found that not to be true. To me, that is a classic definition of the word exonerate.
My mother actually pulled up an article the other day stating that the dictionary needs to be redefined in regards to Trump..
She was trying to prove that he is a r****t...
I am still laughing...
Jul 24, 2019 19:28:08 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
My mother actually pulled up an article the other day stating that the dictionary needs to be redefined in regards to Trump..
She was trying to prove that he is a r****t...
I am still laughing...
She was trying to prove that he is a r****t...
I am still laughing...
Jul 24, 2019 19:29:00 #
EmilyD wrote:
If exonerate means to absolve someone from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case (2+ years, 500 witnesses, $30 million), wouldn't that mean that Mueller's investigation did, in fact, exonerate President Trump? Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to win the e******n. Mueller found that not to be true. To me, that is a classic definition of the word exonerate.
A Special Counsel cannot exonerate anyone. The SC's sole responsibility is to investigate an alleged crime, then, if sufficient evidence exists for an indictment, to issue an indictment for prosecution in a court of law. If sufficient evidence is not found, the SC must decline. An SC IS NOT a court of law, an SC cannot pronounce guilt or innocence.
Jul 24, 2019 19:38:42 #
moldyoldy wrote:
Now, let’s talk about obstruction
Mueller testified, under oath, that: The investigation was not obstructed.
The End.
Jul 24, 2019 19:46:41 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
A Special Counsel cannot exonerate anyone. The SC's sole responsibility is to investigate an alleged crime, then, if sufficient evidence exists for an indictment, to issue an indictment for prosecution in a court of law. If sufficient evidence is not found, the SC must decline. An SC IS NOT a court of law, an SC cannot pronounce guilt or innocence.
A Special Counsel cannot exonerate...but the mere fact that Trump was accused of colluding with the Russians to win the e******n and was found not to have done so, exhibits exoneration on it's own, without anyone pronouncing it. Since they pulled "Russian Collusion" out of thin air, can't I pull "exoneration" out of thin air?
Jul 24, 2019 19:47:56 #
EmilyD wrote:
A Special Counsel cannot exonerate...but the mere fact that Trump was accused of colluding with the Russians to win the e******n and was found not to have done so, exhibits exoneration on it's own, without anyone pronouncing it. Since they pulled "Russian Collusion" out of thin air, can't I pull "exoneration" out of thin air?
Jul 24, 2019 20:17:42 #
Gatsby wrote:
Mueller testified, under oath, that: The investigation was not obstructed.
The End.
The End.
Did fox tell you that you heard that?
Jul 24, 2019 20:19:21 #
EmilyD wrote:
You can pull it out of thin air if you want, but it is irrelevant. Accusations mean absolutely nothing if they are not given due process under our justice system. A Special Counsel cannot exonerate...but the mere fact that Trump was accused of colluding with the Russians to win the e******n and was found not to have done so, exhibits exoneration on it's own, without anyone pronouncing it. Since they pulled "Russian Collusion" out of thin air, can't I pull "exoneration" out of thin air?
This is all behind us now, Emily, the Mueller debacle is over, it proved nothing other than how corrupt the Obama administration and Hillary's campaign actually was.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.