Mueller Investigation pt5

[TellyKNeasuss]

Not according to Barr. He said Mueller did not find collusion. When you can't find your keys, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Legalese is very precise.

Once again it all comes back to what "no collusion" means. Which is why Mueller's report needs to be released.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This might be true, but Barr's statement implies that a person can only be guilty of obstruction of justice if they are acting to impede an investigation into a crime that they may have committed as opposed to impeding an investigation into a crime that someone else may have committed. I do not believe that this is actually true.

Yep.
That's special pleading.
From now on, a President can Obstruct on behalf of his fixer as much as he wants.

 

[portlandatheist]

Time well spent

Indeed. The most productive and cost-effective special counsel investigation in US history.

 

[smartcooky]

Not quite. Barr said two things in this regard. First, he said that Mueller never came to a decision about whether or not Trump obstructed justice ("The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”"). That matches up with your post, but it's not Barr's final word on the matter. He also said:

In other words, while Mueller may have been unwilling to clear Trump of obstruction accusations, Barr and Rosenstein are doing so.

No, a declination to prosecute is not necessarily clearing him. It means that they don't have a sufficient level of evidence to be sure of going to trial and getting a conviction.

This is no different from a DA who does not prosecute a criminal suspect even though he has a good deal of evidence pointing towards his guilt. What DA's are always wary of is going to trial on a shaky case and losing it, because if they lose, the suspect is cleared and double jeopardy kicks in.

Mueller and Barr have both made this clear - “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”

"does not conclude that the president committed a crime" is not the same as "concluding that the president did not commit a crime"

The meaning of "it also does not exonerate him" is clear and unequivocal.

 

[smartcooky]

Indeed. The most productive and cost-effective special counsel investigation in US history.

By a long shot. It made more money in confiscated assets that it cost.

 

[Toontown]

I think no evidence to unearth is a simpler explanation than evidence too hard to find.

That is situational.

For one example, it there is collusion, but the collusion is implicit (unspoken), then the chance of finding evidence to prove it in court is very nearly zero. The correlation could be such that you can be nearly certain that implicit collusion is occurring, but you will never be able to find hard evidence to prove it to a jury. Unless the jury will buy a mathematical proof of hypothesis based on correlation, which seems very unlikely.

In that case, collusion is more likely, less simple, and nearly impossible to find hard evidence for.

 

[dirtywick]

I’m hoping they address Trumps written answers to Mueller in reference to Cohens false testimony to Congress that he plead guilty to the week after. I always thought if there was going to be a solid piece of evidence of Trump outright admitting being tied to Russian government or obstructing justice it would be lies in those answers.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, a declination to prosecute is not necessarily clearing him. It means that they don't have a sufficient level of evidence to be sure of going to trial and getting a conviction.

You say that like they think a crime actually happened and they just can't prove it. But that's not the case. Sure, they don't explicitly say that Trump committed no crime, but prosecutors are never going to commit themselves to such a position since there's always in principle the possibility that some new information might come uo. This is as much of an exoneration as is possible, given the constraint that knowledge is always incomplete.

The meaning of "it also does not exonerate him" is clear and unequivocal.

Sure, but it's also only talking about the report. Barr and Rosenstein have since done what Mueller refused to do: consider what the evidence he's collected adds up to. And Barr and Rosenstein have concluded that it doesn't add up to obstruction, even if Mueller wouldn't make that call.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Barr did what he was hired to do, protect Trump from the Mueller findings. It may work, and only for a couple of particular crimes. Mueller's investigation has already dug up plenty of other crimes Trump and his syndicate have engaged in.

 

[Ziggurat]

Blatant dishonesty, corruption, wasting taxpayer money playing golf, taking credit for things he didn't accomplish, running up the deficit enormously (with the help of the GOP) among other things.

I asked for what exactly he's getting away with. You're giving me the vaguest possible answers. Dishonesty? Corruption? That's as specific as you can be? That's just pathetic.

And golf and the deficit have nothing to do with Mueller's investigation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Barr did what he was hired to do, protect Trump from the Mueller findings. It may work, and only for a couple of particular crimes. Mueller's investigation has already dug up plenty of other crimes Trump and his syndicate have engaged in.

What crimes did Mueller dig up about Trump himself? If your best answer is payments to Stormy, go sit in the corner and think about what you did wrong.

 

[smartcooky]

That is situational.

For one example, it there is collusion, but the collusion is implicit (unspoken), then the chance of finding evidence to prove it in court is very nearly zero. The correlation could be such that you can be nearly certain that implicit collusion is occurring, but you will never be able to find hard evidence to prove it to a jury. Unless the jury will buy a mathematical proof of hypothesis based on correlation, which seems very unlikely.

In that case, collusion is more likely, less simple, and nearly impossible to find hard evidence for.

Its worth noting in this regards to the time that Trump confiscated his translator's note so that there would be no record of what they said to each other.

The other thing, of course, is that Putin and Trump met without a translator at one stage, just the two of them. Trump might not speak Russian, but Putin is an ex-KGB agent, and while not fluent the way he is in Russian and German he sure as hell can speak English.

 

[theprestige]

Not according to Barr. He said Mueller did not find collusion. When you can't find your keys, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Legalese is very precise.

Terrible analogy.

The claim is that so and so was driving the car that caused the accident. What the investigation turned up was that maybe the accident happened, but nobody can find the car, the keys, or the driver.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That is situational.

For one example, it there is collusion, but the collusion is implicit (unspoken), then the chance of finding evidence to prove it in court is very nearly zero. The correlation could be such that you can be nearly certain that implicit collusion is occurring, but you will never be able to find hard evidence to prove it to a jury. Unless the jury will buy a mathematical proof of hypothesis based on correlation, which seems very unlikely.

In that case, collusion is more likely, less simple, and nearly impossible to find hard evidence for.

I do not know enough about implicit quid pro quo and the law to comment.

 

[Giz]

The country will become even more divided anyway. Another big election is coming, and Russia is gearing up again. Objective: divide and conquer. This time, I expect them to try to make it look like the election was stolen, in hopes of touching off a civil war. It could work. The frogs are almost boiled.

Unbelievable. Talk about hysteria, misinformation and divisiveness.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Unbelievable. Talk about hysteria, misinformation and divisiveness.

Exactly, Trump is doing a great job for Putin. It's unbelievable how good.

 

[smartcooky]

You say that like they think a crime actually happened and they just can't prove it.

A crime did in fact happen, and it happened in public.

- Trump fired Comey and stated publicly that he did so because he would not shut down the SCO investigation

- Trump tried numerous times to get Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, and when he wouldn't, Trump fired him.

- Trump tried getting others in his orbit and at the White House to shut down the investigation.

These are all obstruction of justice, so the crime was committed, but Barr has decided that these do not add up to a sufficient level to warrant an indictment.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A crime did in fact happen, and it happened in public.

- Trump fired Comey and stated publicly that he did so because he would not shut down the SCO investigation

- Trump tried numerous times to get Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, and when he wouldn't, Trump fired him.

- Trump tried getting others in his orbit and at the White House to shut down the investigation.

These are all obstruction of justice, so the crime was committed, but Barr has decided that these do not add up to a sufficient level to warrant an indictment.

Trump could rape a baby, on national television, and as long as he was not charged with the crime, Trump-supporters would say Trump committed no crime. They don't care that Trump controls the AG or that the evidence is in plain sight.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

that's my biggest fear at the moment. Perception is reality. Trump defenders are going to use this as a huge talking point.

Other than it is annoying to hear Trump crowing and crowing, if the outcome was different, he'd simply be crowing a different tune with mostly the same effect. Look at some of the people in this forum who repeat known falsehoods over and over.

Right now the positive thing is the Democrats took the House last Nov and at least we won't have to put up with the Congress suppressing a valid investigation.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Yeah but Chris is desperate for his hero to be cleared.

Sunk cost fallacy. You don't want to look like a fool, either. I don't know why it's so hard to say "woah, I thought this guy worked for regular Americans, but it turns out he's a lying criminal *******!"

You are wrong. I think you need to reread the summary here before you comment any further.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706351394/read-the-justice-departments-summary-of-the-mueller-report

"the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."
Chris B.

What's uncivil in asking you, twice, to support your claim? You've now refused, twice, to support your claim. Presumably, because you cannot support your claim. If you think calling you on your inability to support your claim is uncivil, then you, again, don't know what you're talking about.

Already asked and answered in thread.

Chris B.