[DBCJR]

The ONLY “exoneration” is by a court, not law enforcement. In fact, one must be 1) charged and 2) tried to be “exonerated”. Mueller grandstanded this misleading sound bite because from the very start he was politically biased.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

That was one of a couple of lines that I found troubling. Mueller sounded like he wanted to get the President but could not. When you look for evidence of a crime and find none, you simply say so. He also found no proof that the President obstructed justice. He should have simply stated so, not what he said.

[Safrguns]

From a liar’s perspective, its actually a work of art... which is why it’s so infuriating... Just look at all of the lies packed into a single sentence:

“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.”

1. He is guilty... we just cant prove it
2. I was TRYING to exonerate him and I could not
3. You are guilty until proven innocent
4. The purpose of the prosecutor is to exonerate the accused

These are just the lies embedded in that one sentence.
In context with other things said, this statement contains even more lies.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Only the dumbing down of America makes this work. 50 years ago, everybody who stood to gain from a president’s troubles would still be outraged by a prosecutor operating under the premise the president is guilty until proven innocent. Today, there are 2 generations of young Americans that have no clue how government/law works. So the line cited in the article doesn’t sound nonsensical and outrageous to them. If you are older, it is preposterous.

Of course, the older Rats believe the ends justify the means, so they don’t care.

[Maris Crane]

I shall repeat here:

THE SOB MUELLER, DESTROYED THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

WE SHOULD ALL DESPISE HIM FOR THAT.

Somehow that has GOT to be restored.

and I am not a lawyer.

[wideminded]

That’s not how it works in America. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed, they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are not supposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”

Obviously this (stupidly or intentionally) leaves out the case where investigators look for evidence that a crime was committed and they do find such evidence. That's what happened here.

[SMARTY]

HIS personal ‘confidence’ does not (MAY NOT)take the place of EVIDENCE

How stupid can he BE? How stupid is the MSM that NO ONE in the media catches that or calls him on this patently obvious lie?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.”

If I had confidence that Robert Mueller was not a low-down snake in the grass I would say so right now.

Anyone can play that game, Bobby baby.

[Intolerant in NJ]

We’re all exonerated to begin with, until somebody comes up with enough evidence to show we’re guilty - which hasn’t happened for Trump no matter how fast Mueller talks......