Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
varwoche said:
The fact that Mueller was unable to array sufficient evidence to cross the threshold of criminality
Click to expand...

I wish people would stop saying this. We don't know what evidence Mueller has. He could have Trump dead to rights, but didn't feel it was his place to indict, which is something he's said all along. *Barr* says there isn't enough evidence.
 
Mueller made it clear he wouldn't indict a sitting president.
That means that if Mueller had incontrovertible proof that Trump has killed people, he still wouldn't indict him.

Barr pretended that Mueller decided not to indict due to lack of evidence - but that isn't the case.
And not even Barr exonorated Trump on Obstruction - which is surprising, given that Mueller wasn't allowed to interview Trump. There must be a lot of evidence in the absence of a direct statement from Individual 1.
 
Ziggurat said:
And a coincidence is enough to cling to a conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about clinging to anything, or conspiracy theories? Oh, that's right: no one. I gave you a simple piece of opinion: it's a very convenient coincidence. It's not proof of anything in and of itself, though in combination with other Russia-related data about Trump and his entourage, it's certainly more convincing.
 
Belz... said:
Who said anything about clinging to anything, or conspiracy theories?
Click to expand...

This entire thread is about a conspiracy theory. Didn't you notice?

Oh, that's right: no one. I gave you a simple piece of opinion: it's a very convenient coincidence. It's not proof of anything in and of itself, though in combination with other Russia-related data about Trump and his entourage, it's certainly more convincing.
Click to expand...

And... there's the clinging.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Mueller made it clear he wouldn't indict a sitting president.
That means that if Mueller had incontrovertible proof that Trump has killed people, he still wouldn't indict him.
Click to expand...

True, but irrelevant. He would state that he had evidence of such a crime, and present that evidence in the report.

Unless Barr is completely lying (unlikely), then the report does not contain any such evidence.
 
Ziggurat said:
True, but irrelevant. He would state that he had evidence of such a crime, and present that evidence in the report.

Unless Barr is completely lying (unlikely), then the report does not contain any such evidence.
Click to expand...

Then let's see the report. Until then it continues to be Barr's word, not Mueller's.
 
Barr might not be lying, but he is cherry picking.
For example, we KNOW that there is at least one sealed indictment.
We also know that Manafort colluded.
 
Ziggurat said:
This entire thread is about a conspiracy theory. Didn't you notice?
Click to expand...

Except that the Russians actually did interfere with our election, and members of the Trump campaign and administration actually did lie about and cover up their contacts with Russian officials.

This is like that hilarious thing 9/11 Truthers do where they call the official story (i.e. reality) the real conspiracy theory.

And... there's the clinging.
Click to expand...

And hey, speaking of clinging to conspiracy theories, here's you clinging to an actual conspiracy theory:

If it was, for example, evidence of Hillary doing something illegal (like approving that uranium deal in exchange for money)

Over...
Yes. I'm surprised you need to be reminded of the uranium deal that Clinton's State Dept. approved, and the subsequent major donations to the Clinton Foundation. There's potentially a lot of information about that deal (and others) which the Russian government might have legal access to.

and over...
Secrets are not the only thing she had to sell. She also had influence. Look up Uranium One.

and over...
And we know that the Clinton Foundation did in fact accept foreign donations while Hillary was Sec. of State, including from parties with business before the state department who both donated to the Clinton Foundation and received favorable treatment from State (see Uranium One).

and over...
Uranium One.

I'll grant you this, if anyone knows what it's like to cling to a conspiracy theory, it would definitely be you.
 
Ziggurat said:
Orange man will always be bad, I guess.
Click to expand...

Can anyone doubt it? Really?

Of course, it doesn't mean everything he has ever done and ever will do is bad, but his track record is remarkably bad.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Then let's see the report.
Click to expand...

I'm all for that.

Until then it continues to be Barr's word, not Mueller's.
Click to expand...

Rosenstein at least has also read the report. His take might be a bit different, but if it were 180 degrees different (ie, Mueller claimed he found proof of collusion) I think he would speak out.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's an ironic accusation, given that this thread now consists mostly of people whining about how the Mueller report doesn't mean Trump is innocent.

Orange man will always be bad, I guess.
Click to expand...

For those keeping score at home, second-guessing what a Trump subordinate tells you about the Trump investigation before the actual report has been released = bad.

Second-guessing the full and complete results of the Clinton investigation that ended years ago = good:
Ziggurat said:
We know for a fact Hillary violated the statutes on handling classified materials. Hell, she did so even after the investigation began. For example, she deposited her emails with her lawyer, but those emails contained classified information, and that lawyer was not cleared to handle classified information.
Click to expand...


Unproven speculation about the Trump investigation = conspiracy theory.

Unproven speculation about the Clinton investigation = sound reasoning:
Ziggurat said:
By Comey. Because he didn't want to recommend indicting Hillary, and so he didn't want it to look like there was a reason to recommend indicting Hillary.
Click to expand...
Ziggurat said:
It's a reasonable inference from facts such as the DOJ's interference in the case. I think Comey got the message, and marched accordingly. Can I prove it? No. But it's certainly a possibility.
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
So. You still don't know why he did it. There are a myriad of reasons and objectives the sharer and the receiver cod have. They are not all collusion.
Click to expand...

Even Giuliani said that what Manafort did amounts to Collision.
It really seems that Trump's best defense is that he had no clue what anyone in his campaign did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom