PeterS

How did it clear Trump? Explain how he was exonerated...

archie bunker Loc: Texas

It didn't show him to be guilty of anything.

steve66613

The “cons” all learned that EXONERATED isn’t a legal term. As usual, the “progs” didn’t learn a damn thing!

PeterS

So you can't prove how Trump was shown to be innocent because exonerated isn't a legal term? Oh, I see the game you play. A clever way of protecting your Trumpen Fuhrer...

PeterS

All that means is you didn't watch it. You are a conservative. I never expected you would...

archie bunker Loc: Texas

I know, huh? Us conservatives have jobs. Can't hardly lay around the house watching C-Span scratching our nuts, and eating government funded potato chips while we go out, work, pay taxes, and feed our own families now, can we?

PeterS

Do you mean when people learn that GDP under Trump is less than it was under Obama? What do you think that Fox News poll will do then???

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

According to US Legal, exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.

According to University of California Irvine Newkirk Center for Science & Society, University of Michigan Law School & Michigan State University College of Law, an exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of innocence.

A person has been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and, following a post-conviction re-examination of the evidence in the case, was either: (1) declared to be factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official or body with the authority to take that action.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, to exonerate someone is to remove the stain of being called out for blame, liability, or punishment. It is more that just freeing an accused person of the responsibility for a criminal or otherwise illegal or wrongful act. It is publicly stating that the accused should never have been accused in the first place.

Under our American system of justice, a person ACCUSED of a crime is innocent until proven guilty by trial in a court of law, and the burden of proof is upon the ACCUSER. (See "absolve" and "acquit")

Under our American system of justice, following an investigation in which the investigating agency feels sufficient evidence justifies prosecution, the investigating agency must submit an indictment of the ACCUSED to a grand jury or to the proper court. At this point, the investigating agency's job is over.

Under our American system of justice, a grand jury will convene to determine if the evidence is in fact sufficient to prosecute, or the proper court will convene to try the case.

Put simply,

Donald Trump was ACCUSED of the crime of obstruction of justice.
The investigating agency did not find sufficient evidence to justify issuing an indictment.
Therefore, no grand jury was convened to review the evidence, and no court was convened to prosecute.
Therefore, since Donald Trump WAS NOT convicted of the charges, and since to "exonerate" is publicly stating that the accused should never have been accused in the first place, under its legal definition "exoneration" does not apply in this case.

.

Gatsby

NWOR

PeterS

Thanks for verifying the fact that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. I never lay around eating potato chips (my cardiologist cut them from my diet) and the taxes I pay quarterly from my business more than pay for my right to watch every second of the Mueller Report.

Instead of working for someone else why didn't you start a business and doing something productive instead working like a chump and selling your productivity to someone else...

steve66613

Lets see....not guilty of “collusion” (another non-legal term) BUT guilty of obstruction.

Prove to me how one would obstruct a non-existent crime.

That would be like saying: “you’re not a dumb @ss, but, when you’re called a dumb @ss; you said you aren’t.

Regardless, you know what you are.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Always gotta be insulting don't you, wealthy, crippled old slum lord!!
And, just FYI, I had my own business for about 14 years until I was too badly injured to carry on with it. I was doing MAN stuff, not cheating the government, and tenants like you do. And, what I'm doing now, and what I've been doing for years benefits you, personally.

So, pound sand my friend. Pound tons of sand!!

PeterS

Sorry, but I missed this one. Mueller showed ten instances where Trump obstructed Justice...I believe that one was all that was necessary to impeach Bill Clinton. There is much more but that is enough for impeachment. And here is a transcript of Muller's testimony. Give it a read if you want to know the truth. Of course, if you don't I fully understand why you couldn't do it...and that's just SAD...just saying...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/full-transcript-robert-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

That what Rats do, they ugly creatures ,they insult because that's all they have to give...I am sooooo glad i never joined Rats' Party since i came to United States...

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Potential obstruction..not the same....And if somebody accused you of basically being treasonous and obstructing you in every way possible, wouldn't you be pissed off too????And when people upset they often lash out at people closest to them...That's what Trump did...There was no obstruction,because even Mueller agreed that President Trump let him finish investigation, let his people be interviewed, gave Mueller's team millions of docs..What else do you want him to do????