a professional environmentalists take on Hunter Biden laptop

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, your statement about Mueller is incorrect.

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III Makes Statement on Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election
Washington, DC ~ Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office . . .

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

I said that "he said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the election"

Mueller said that "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I said that "he said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the election"

Mueller said that "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

And the second volume is the evidence of obstruction to the investigation that prevented them from obtaining that evidence.
Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And the second volume is the evidence of obstruction to the investigation that prevented them from obtaining that evidence.
Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller said, about vol. 2 "we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime" because of Dept. policy. If that were the case, then why did he reach a determination in vol. 1?

And it was not the purpose of his investigation to formally charge, but to gather evidence and make a conclusion, "one way or the other" and submit his findings to the DOJ. Which he did (except for a conclusion in vol. II), and the DOJ submitted its conclusion on the Mueller report to the AG in a memorandum

(MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - THROUGH: THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY amend FROM: Steven A. Engel C5 Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel Edward C. O'Callaghan Principal Associate Deputy Attomey General SUBJECT: Review of the Special Counsel's Report)

in which they made the decision that "the evidence described in vol II of the report is not, in our judgment, sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Mueller said, about vol. 2 "we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime" because of Dept. policy. If that were the case, then why did he reach a determination in vol. 1?

And it was not the purpose of his investigation to formally charge, but to gather evidence and make a conclusion, "one way or the other" and submit his findings to the DOJ. Which he did (except for a conclusion in vol. II), and the DOJ submitted its conclusion on the Mueller report to the AG in a memorandum

(MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - THROUGH: THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY amend FROM: Steven A. Engel C5 Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel Edward C. O'Callaghan Principal Associate Deputy Attomey General SUBJECT: Review of the Special Counsel's Report)

in which they made the decision that "the evidence described in vol II of the report is not, in our judgment, sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes."

Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hence? No indictment requires pardons?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hence? No indictment requires pardons?

Why were Manafort, Stone and Flynn pardoned?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Why were Manafort, Stone and Flynn pardoned?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think it was because the DOJ review of Mueller's 10 instances of possible Trump obstruction found, in their judgment, that they were not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your response (to the DOJ review of Mueller's 10 instances of possible Trump obstruction found, in their judgment, that they were not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes) "hence the pardons" makes no sense.