You appear to be a little confused.
No “verdict” has occured.
if anyone has not seen the crying of Rachel Madcow over the mueller report. It is classic 2016 election stuff.
1 Like
Interesting to mention this…whatever it is…in a thread about fact checking the media. At best the video i watched on the daily caller website says she’s “holding back tears” because she’s totally going to cry. Totally. So yeah she’s just crying her eyes out talking about the Mueller report. Totally happened and is real news.
1 Like
Both are correct. He went looking for crimes with zero evidence of a crime ever being committed.
That is substantially different from uncovering crimes in the normal course of his investigation.
He was empowered to launch a national security investigation into the Trump/Russia collusion not conduct an anal exam of everyone in the family or affiliated with them.
Think about it.
A person is arrested and charged with a crime. That person is INNOCENT until proven guilty.
The jury (or judge) will return one of two verdicts. Guilty, or not guilty.
If they are found not guilty of committing the crime they would be exonerated of the crime as they can never be prosocuted for it again (exept for the bastardizing of the system where being charged in Federal court for th exact same charge found not guilty in state court isn’t double jerpardy.)
Thanks for the civics lesson, but I think you might have misunderstood my post.
In the chain of replies there is nothing else in there about no verdict.
Post before your’s:
A "not ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ " verdict is by default exhoneration. “Innocent until PROVEN guilty.”
Then your reply
You appear to be a little confused.
No “verdict” has occured.
My point was not complicated. It’s very simple - no “verdict” of not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt has been handed down.
I did not comment on whether or not Trump was “innocent” or “guilty”.
I thought my post was fairly self-explanatory.
There was nothing in the reply chain implying that you were talking about Trump.
I was responding directly to the post I responded to. I was not talking about anyone.
Who are you talking about? I really have no idea what your point is.
You replied to someone who said a not guilty verdict is exoneration.
You said no verdict was given.
So I explained whta the not guilty verdict means.
Ok. Then we’re just talking past each other.
Because your second sentence does not mean the same thing as your first. It’s the EXACT same type of “spin” that you’re decrying.
1 Like
Crying cause she can no longer cast her vote for
Avenatti?
Sure it does. This report does not conclude a crime was committed, but doesn’t exonerate him.
If you don’t conclude a crime was committed it means you found a crime was NOT committed.
Be our guest…fact check away.
I don’t pay a bit of attention to the media as no matter who you listen to they lie.
Actually, what you can believe is if there was any chance at all that he had the goods, Mueller would have indicted the President’s co-conspirators.
That means that no matter what you think of Bob Mueller, he could not so indict, because there was nothing to indict for.
You can still believe he is a loathsome ■■■■■ if you’re so inclined, and still believe his conclusions are based in the truth.
M
Here’s an interesting little tidbit on how things in Barr’s letter are reported/spun. It’s not just the media that spins the stories, the AG does it too. Notice how the first statement provides specifics.
This is a description of the resources used by the Meuller.
in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
Now read the information regarding the results of the investigation. There is a noticeable lack of specificity in the number of indictments, the people that were convicted…
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action.
2 Likes
Literally everyone, they do it in real time on his speeches. I personally think it’s ok, but the OP has a point I don’t see the same fact checking tools applied as much to the left.
The only one close is WaPo has went beyond the rest of the pack to Pinocchio AOC.
The number of indictments, convictions, guilty please and the like are already a know number.
The numbers listed in your previous quote are numbers that were not publicly knows.
See the difference?
