Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Why the obsession with exoneration?

Jul 25, 2019 4:21AM PDT

With many news outlets proclaiming that Trump was not "exonerated" of a crime, let's just look at a definition of it.

Exoneration

From the link

" In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent."

From this definition, Trump would first need to be convicted and later found not guilty. To my knowledge, except in the minds of certain people, guilt has not yet been established. Also, to my knowledge, suspicion of guilt still doesn't count. Personally, I'd like to see this come to an end and for the opposition party to focus on some sort of positive message about their own achievements rather than put the country through any more of this. If Trump has been a bad president, his performance numbers would show it.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
good catch, but...
Jul 25, 2019 8:36AM PDT

...the way the Dems, who are too stupid to realize it's actual meaning, is using the word is to demand that Trump "prove his innocence against unfounded charges", so the burden of proof they can't offer against him will not be so noticeably weak, which Mueller just proved. Impeachment is dead for them, except Al Green is a bit too stupid to understand that, since he's failed on 3 votes from 2017 till now to get his "articles of impeachment" approved by Congress. It was defeated this last time by 3 to 1 on votes. He's a stupid glutton for punishment and embarassment it seems, LOL.

- Collapse -
RE:Trump would first need to be convicted
Jul 25, 2019 8:40AM PDT
Trump would first need to be convicted and later found not guilty.

Perhaps he knows he was guilty and exonerated himself?

RE:Why the obsession with exoneration?

Ask the Exonerator in Chief?
- Collapse -
Dictionaries are static. English is not.
Jul 25, 2019 9:15AM PDT

Also, in the heat of battle some defnitions get modified on the fly.

Trump was the one "obsessed" with it, and he clearly meant 'I'm not guilty of whatever!' Myself, I'd be hard pressed to recall what "whatever" was. Had something to to do with First Tuesday 2016. I think. In any case, his opinion was wrong. The author of the report in question said 'no exoneration'. (Of what? Don't ask me!) From the source, so it has to stand as fact. Which trumps opinion.

As I've noted before, if it concerns Putin then it cannot be a good thing for anyone*. Therefore, patriotic Americans should welcome any and all investigations into his actions. One side of patriots doesn't want actions. The other seems to want certain actions for reasons that have to do with party, not national, allegiance.
Hard to find good patriots, isn't it?

The only action certain to come is on First Tuesday 2020.

* Based on his publicly recorded actions, not ideology