The Mueller Report thread

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2019, 12:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, there is. However, it is something that comes after someone has been found guilty of a crime and then the verdict is reverse. That's the legal sense of the word. The word itself, though, is used in the context of the Mueller report simply to make explicit that the lack of indictment was not based on a lack of evidence.

The report itself lays out a plethora of evidence that could be used to indict. Enough, even, that I have heard several former federal prosecutors state that in their experience they would bring an indictment on three of the charges, even without an interview from Trump to get to intent. But, since Mueller knew from the onset that indictment was not going to be on the table thanks to the OLC memo, it wasn't on the menu. He could have literally had Trump tell him to his face that he was guilty of obstructing justice and there would be no indictment. He would have had the same conclusion in the second section of the report.


Parrots gonna parrot.


You nailed it, here. Pretty sad that you're understanding our system of government better than some of our own citizens.

Didn't Mueller clarify to say the reason he didn't indite was not because of the OLC memo, but rather because they "decided not to make a decision"