Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
I get it, "we made a decision not to decide to prosecute or not." I totally understand that.

What I don't understand is how that contradicts in any way, shape or form the question of if the President is guilty of crimes or not. Prosecution =! conclusions on if crimes were committed. Right?

ETA: They appear to be different questions to me. I am certainly not a lawyer, and I'll admit to be wrong all of the time. I just don't understand where I'm wrong here.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way - given that he's been so very careful to not say that he and/or his team came to a conclusion on whether or not Trump committed a crime, is it more likely that in this instance he misspoke under a set of circumstances in which he has demonstrated that he's not entirely on the ball, or that he changed his stance on this matter completely during the course of this hearing?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Look at it this way - given that he's been so very careful to not say that he and/or his team came to a conclusion on whether or not Trump committed a crime, is it more likely that in this instance he misspoke under a set of circumstances in which he has demonstrated that he's not entirely on the ball, or that he changed his stance on this matter completely during the course of this hearing?
Click to expand...

...but he laid out in his report 10 different points where he committed a crime. He seems to have no issues at all saying Trump committed a crime. He does seem to have issues saying he would or should have prosecuted.
 
Segnosaur said:
Even if Mueller's comments were taken out of context and/or were misinterpreted, they could still be damaging to Trump and the Republicans. Sound bites like that can have a big impact, since people don't often dig deeper into various quotes for context or clarification. (Witness Clinton's "Deplorables" comment.)

And to be honest, I wouldn't mind a bit. We've seen the Republicans benefit from that sort of misinterpretation for years, so turnabout is fair play.
Click to expand...
I can't get behind that. If I did I'd never have any credibility criticizing a quote mine from a creationist or anti-vaxxer ever again.
 
plague311 said:
...but he laid out in his report 10 different points where he committed a crime. He seems to have no issues at all saying Trump committed a crime. He does seem to have issues saying he would or should have prosecuted.
Click to expand...

So? Congress has all the information they need already. The hearing isn't going to help them make a decision. It was just to publicly expose details of the report to the public.
 
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1154074093026795520

Nunes claims the Steele memo said Trump was a Russian agent. Two points:

1) No, it didn't.

2) The Mueller Report POINTEDLY did not address whether he was or not.

3) Mueller already testified today that blackmail was a real concern.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1154074507235254273

Nunes just misstated what Ohr's role is.

He also portrayed Alexander Downer as something other than Five Eyes intelligence.
Click to expand...
 
plague311 said:
...but he laid out in his report 10 different points where he committed a crime. He seems to have no issues at all saying Trump committed a crime. He does seem to have issues saying he would or should have prosecuted.
Click to expand...

He laid out evidence that has led you (and me, and many others) to conclude that Trump committed a crime. That's not the same thing as saying Trump committed a crime.
 
plague311 said:
He seems to have no issues at all saying Trump committed a crime.
Click to expand...


No, that's exactly what he has a problem with. Mueller has specifically said two things he can't do and this is one of them. First he points out that he can't indict a sitting president. Second, he points out he can't even accuse the president of a crime because the president would have no recourse in court to refute the accusation.


He's laid out the elements of the crime. Next step is up to Congress (or possibly individual states or later prosecutors when Trump is out of office).
 
Belz... said:
So? Congress has all the information they need already. The hearing isn't going to help them make a decision. It was just to publicly expose details of the report to the public.
Click to expand...

Ok...I don't think I said anything to the contrary, but duly noted.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
He laid out evidence that has led you (and me, and many others) to conclude that Trump committed a crime. That's not the same thing as saying Trump committed a crime.
Click to expand...

RecoveringYuppy said:
No, that's exactly what he has a problem with. Mueller has specifically said two things he can't do and this is one of them. First he points out that he can't indict a sitting president. Second, he points out he can't even accuse the president of a crime because the president would have no recourse in court to refute the accusation.


He's laid out the elements of the crime. Next step is up to Congress (or possibly individual states or later prosecutors when Trump is out of office).
Click to expand...

I'll just drop it. I'm obviously not going to get it. Thanks.
 
There we go! In his opening statement, Mueller has just addressed the statement made to Ted Lieu, and affirms that my characterisation is correct and he wasn't saying that he would have prosecuted if it weren't for OLC guidelines.
 
Belz... said:
Uh-huh, and how does that relate to the dossier?
Click to expand...

It relates to the question of whether a claim is less likely to be disinformation if parts of it can be verified.

Again, it's not my intention to argue for or against the dossier itself. I'm simply saying that a claim having verifiable elements doesn't actually tell us whether the claim is disinfo, or bogus in some way. In every case, it's necessary to examine the specifics of which parts of the claim are verified and which parts matter.

With regard to the Steele Dossier, it may not be disinfo at all. I just don't like the argument that it may not be disinfo because some (unexamined) parts have been verified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom