Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
I watch you keep spinning. If they had had confidence that the president clearly did commit a crime, they would have said so. There is nothing, no law, no tradition, that would have prevented them from saying so. In fact, the purpose of the investigation was exactly to say so if the evidence clearly led to that conclusion. The purpose of a prosecutorial investigation is to convict, not to exonerate. The American way, the American tradition, is that there is firstly a presumption of innocence. If conviction cannot be had, the presumption of innocence stands.
We are now, according to your spin, supposed to assume guilt and innocence must be proved.
|
No, you are incorrect, the enabling legislation and DOJ rules calls out what is required and Mueller clearly lays out what he believed he could and could not do in the report.
What we are to do at this point is really simple, the House investigates and if needed impeaches the President.
Meanwhile Trump continues to obstruct the investigation, and it is justifiable in your mind because he's mad.
Others think he is covering things up.
Pay attention to Muellers closing statement:
"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American."
Threaded Mode