Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Is that a change of horses, or just a goalpost-move?

I'm not going to have to do anything. Especially not anything about a problem I wasn't even talking about.
Click to expand...

Nah, bro, it's neither: I was merely pointing out that you are being (surprise surprise!) disingenuous (as usual) in your "defense" of Trump. The fact that states run elections does not mean Trump is justified in simply ignoring an election issue. After all, he even took the onus on himself when he wanted to pursue his BS claim of illegal immigrants voting.

And no, you don't have to do anything: You're more than welcome to remain ignorant; indeed, that's kind of incumbent for Trump apologists at this point.
 
Ziggurat said:
Evidently quite a lot, since that's not actually what Mueller said. So why did you put it in quotes?

Here's the actual text (again from page 214 of the PDF):
"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."
Click to expand...

And here's the actual quote:

And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Sounds pretty damned close to what Ginger said.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's the stated motivation for refusing to conclude guilt. But regardless of motivation, the fact remains, as I stated, that Mueller refused to conclude guilt.
Click to expand...

Yes, and he explained why he did that. He also stated that had the President not committed a crime, he would have said so, but he was not able to do that.

It doesn't take a Genius to work out that when someone says, "I can't say the guy is guilty of committing a crime because that would be unfair to him, but I would have cleared him if he didn't do it. Oh, and btw, from the evidence I have here, I can't do that!" what it actually means.
 
PhantomWolf said:
It doesn't take a Genius to work out that when someone says, "I can't say the guy is guilty of committing a crime because that would be unfair to him, but I would have cleared him if he didn't do it. Oh, and btw, from the evidence I have here, I can't do that!" what it actually means.
Click to expand...

Gee, that is so ******* cryptic! I don't know what any of that means!
 
Upchurch said:
I'm not saying the Senate would remove him from office. What I want to know is why you think an informed jury would not convict, given the evidence outlined in the Mueller report.
Click to expand...

As I indicated before, I really don't have anything more to say on this subject, but I did want to respond to this direct question. I will preface my remarks by saying that I'm not here to try and persuade anyone. Future events will tell whether I am right or wrong, and until then, it's just us folks yapping. Unfortunately, it's usually just us folks talking past each other.

That being said.....

I think the definition of "obstruction of justice" being used by those who want to see Trump prosecuted (either by impeachment or post-term in a real court) is overly broad. Right now, we're all talking through a cacophony of government and media voices, mostly with very strong political motives. It's hard to make sense out of all of them. I think that if a jury were to hear a coherent defense related to both the law and the facts of the case, they would conclude that Trump did not, in fact, commit a criminal act worthy of prosecution.


Now, I could pursue that line of thought further. Indeed, it would be an interesting intellectual exercise. However, I have also concluded that a reasonable conversation on the subject simply cannot take place on this forum. There are just too many voices all talking from all sorts of different directions. A coherent exploration of the issues just wouldn't happen. Instead, there would be a few people trying to hold a coherent conversation regarding the concept of "corrupt intent", while there would be a bunch of sniping from the sides saying, "Meadmaker must think....(insert something stupid here)".


So, instead, I'll bow out, unless someone can make some sort of suggestion of how we might be able to avoid the unpleasant aspects of that sort of conversation. Time will tell if I am correct in my assessment of the associated legalities.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Too bad they didn't arrest him for paying the Russians (to help Trump win the elections) at Trump's behest. If nothing else, it would have made your post a lot more sensical.
Click to expand...

And exactly what about my post was not 'sensical'? If a post is nonsensical, it would have to be yours as I said nothing except report a fact: Nader was a Mueller witness and was just arrested for child porn. It's his connection to the Mueller investigation that makes it relevant to this thread. Frankly, your reaction is just plain odd.
 
Meadmaker said:
As I indicated before, I really don't have anything more to say on this subject, but I did want to respond to this direct question. I will preface my remarks by saying that I'm not here to try and persuade anyone. Future events will tell whether I am right or wrong, and until then, it's just us folks yapping. Unfortunately, it's usually just us folks talking past each other.

That being said.....

I think the definition of "obstruction of justice" being used by those who want to see Trump prosecuted (either by impeachment of post-term in a real court) is overly broad. ...
Click to expand...
There is a list of very specific actions in the Mueller report. There is no overly-broad about it.

I don't understand why you are working so hard to make it not so.
 
Stacyhs said:
And exactly what about my post was not 'sensical'? If a post is nonsensical, it would have to be yours as I said nothing except report a fact: Nader was a Mueller witness and was just arrested for child porn. It's his connection to the Mueller investigation that makes it relevant to this thread. Frankly, your reaction is just plain odd.
Click to expand...
Trump knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who's into child porn, allegedly.

What sense does that have to do with anything Mueller was investigating? You know, the topic of the thread?
 
theprestige said:
Trump knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who's into child porn, allegedly.

What sense does that have to do with anything Mueller was investigating? You know, the topic of the thread?
Click to expand...

Would you think it more 'sensical' if I had just left out what he was arrested for and simply quoted his ties to the Mueller investigation (you know, the topic of this thread)?

Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who has ties to former aides to President Donald Trump, has served as an adviser to the ruling families of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He is mentioned repeatedly in Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including in a section discussing his work arranging a January 2017 meeting in the Seychelles between Trump ally Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev, who heads the Russian sovereign wealth fund.
Click to expand...
 
PhantomWolf said:
Yes, and he explained why he did that. He also stated that had the President not committed a crime, he would have said so, but he was not able to do that.
Click to expand...

No. He said that if the investigation proved he didn't commit a crime, he would say so. But the possibility remains that the President didn't commit a crime but the investigation couldn't prove he didn't. That distinction is extremely important, and you're getting it wrong.
 
Belz... said:
Is it, though? Not doing something is the same as refusing to do it? There's more than a subtle difference there.
Click to expand...

When you have a choice in the matter (as Mueller did), then yes, deciding not to do it is the same as refusing to do it. There isn't a difference, subtle or otherwise.

Belz... said:
And here's the actual quote:
Click to expand...

THE actual quote? No, an actual quote, and not the only one addressing the topic. I gave an actual quote as well in the post you responded to. It was a direct quote from the report itself, not a second hand characterization.

And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Sounds pretty damned close to what Ginger said.
Click to expand...

There's a major difference, which I already pointed out. What Ginger said concerned the actual guilt or innocence of Trump. The real quotes (both versions) are about the provable innocence of Trump. Whether you are provably innocent is a different question than whether you are actually innocent You can be actually innocent even if you aren't provably innocent. Futhermore, provable innocence is not the standard which prosecutors are supposed to use, and Mueller acted badly in adopting that as his standard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom