• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking for myself, I have about zero patience for attacking someone because of what another person did based on captain hindsight logic.

Hindsight logic would be a case where the best action is more clear due to information revealed later. I, and most people who are disappointed by Mueller had hopes for his actions before he took them, so it would not apply.
 
I don't believe that it is fair or just to make up goalposts that were not part of a person's job and then criticize them because they didn't meet those invented criteria.

Do you believe that there are any criteria outside of the law or job descriptions that anyone could be held to?

Forget Mueller for a second. I'm trying to understand your baseline so I can see if communication is actually possible here.

I think people can be criticized for actions even if those actions are legal and within their job description. Again, forget Mueller, please just answer in the general sense. I think plenty of things can be cruel or cowardly or a million other negative things even if they are not illegal and are within a job description. Do you agree?
 
"Look, if I strip the entire context of what we're talking about away, can I get partial credit for having any kind of coherent point?"
 
Hindsight logic would be a case where the best action is more clear due to information revealed later. I, and most people who are disappointed by Mueller had hopes for his actions before he took them, so it would not apply.

If you thought that Mueller was going to have a big press conference where he called Trump a lair, then all I can say is that such a belief was delusional.

I don't necessarily agree with all of the conclusions that he made, and I think that had I been doing the report I'd have pushed harder to get certain witnesses, though I understand the reasons for not doing so, but I don't believe that he has done anything wrong in the way the report was written or how he has handled it since it's release. In fact I think he did exactly what could have been expected of him, and that he probably did go beyond the boundaries in the press conference that he did have.
 
Do you believe that there are any criteria outside of the law or job descriptions that anyone could be held to?

Forget Mueller for a second. I'm trying to understand your baseline so I can see if communication is actually possible here.

I think people can be criticized for actions even if those actions are legal and within their job description. Again, forget Mueller, please just answer in the general sense. I think plenty of things can be cruel or cowardly or a million other negative things even if they are not illegal and are within a job description. Do you agree?

I think that it is unfair to criticize people who do their job to the best standards of the job while remaining within the law. I don't believe that anyone should be expected to go beyond the boundaries of their job description when asked to complete a task.
 
Adding to what PW just said. Meuller didn't say he suppressed any evidence. He said he couldn't indict a sitting president.
Neither did I. So you and PW's problem is reading stuff into my post that wasn't there.

I said "didn't want to present all the evidence". I didn't say he suppressed it.
 
Last edited:
Wow, certain posters here need to stfu and go and learn who Mueller is before continuing to demand what he should have done by projecting what they think they would have done.

The actions they keep wanting him to have taken are the very antithesis of the man in question, a man that speaks on the facts, presenting them for others to draw conclusions, rather than giving those conclusions to them. A man who was well liked and known by both parties previous to the whole Trump thing as being extremely impartial to a fault. A man who plays it to the letter of the book.

He showed exactly that in his forced testimony, a testimony that he had stated previously that he was unwilling to do, and that would be no more than the Report.

He was never going to give the Democrats, nor the Republicans the sound bytes they wanted. Just go and watch what the media was saying about him prior to the testimony. They knew exactly what to expect from him.

And in the end what he said wouldn't really matter anyways. Those that don't want to hear what was in the report would still be ignoring it like they are now.

Heck, he did go off script when talking Russian interference, declaring not only that they did it, but that they were still doing it and that other countries were developing the techniques too. He couldn't have given a clearer warning, and what did Moscow Mitch do that same day?

It's time to stop shooting the messenger, he did his job to the letter, he has given the facts, and the facts are damning. Those you should be after are the ones who have the facts and refuse to look at them or act on them.

Exactly this.
Thank you.
 
I think that it is unfair to criticize people who do their job to the best standards of the job while remaining within the law. I don't believe that anyone should be expected to go beyond the boundaries of their job description when asked to complete a task.

Thought experiment.

You're a cable installer. A damned good one. You arrive at a house to install cable and open the wrong door. Whoops, there's a bunch of children chained to the wall with gags in their mouths. You recognize them from the milk cartons.

In the particular place you live, there is no law that says you need to report any witnessed crime of any type. And the cable company has no policy whatsoever about reporting crimes.

Would it be unfair to judge you for doing a bangup job installing the cable, walking out the door and never thinking to alert law enforcement? You've done the job of installing cable to the best standards. You're within the law.

I contend that there are other standards to judge behavior on beyond whether it's legal and within a job description. And I think you agree with me, otherwise criticism couldn't be "unfair" unless it were illegal or prohibited by a job description.
 
Those who are 'disappointed' in Mueller are basically bemoaning the fact that nearly half the nation is stupid and/or media silo'd. Nothing Mueller could have said or presented--outside of egregiously violating rules and mandate--would make an iota of difference, probably.

A nation comprising a larger fraction of halfway educated, thinking, aware citizens not grotesquely polarized would see Mueller's report for what it is. Recall that some 1,000 prosecutors have signed a letter saying that they would indict had they the case and were Trump not a s(h)itting President.

We need more of the "men in the street" to catch up.
 
Thought experiment.

You're a cable installer. A damned good one. You arrive at a house to install cable and open the wrong door. Whoops, there's a bunch of children chained to the wall with gags in their mouths. You recognize them from the milk cartons.

In the particular place you live, there is no law that says you need to report any witnessed crime of any type. And the cable company has no policy whatsoever about reporting crimes.

Would it be unfair to judge you for doing a bangup job installing the cable, walking out the door and never thinking to alert law enforcement? You've done the job of installing cable to the best standards. You're within the law.

I contend that there are other standards to judge behavior on beyond whether it's legal and within a job description. And I think you agree with me, otherwise criticism couldn't be "unfair" unless it were illegal or prohibited by a job description.

I don't think it would be fair to criticize my cable work based on if I called the police or not for an unrelated issue.

Your analogy is a fail though.

A closer one would be a safety inspector investigating an incident at a factory and then being criticized for not making their confidential report into the incident public or speaking out publicly against the CEO who is misrepresenting their report. In this case one of these things would be a breach of their employment and the other is not part of their responsibility and in many ways would be seen as unhonorable and detrimental to them to do.
 
Last edited:
Thought experiment.



You're a cable installer. A damned good one. You arrive at a house to install cable and open the wrong door. Whoops, there's a bunch of children chained to the wall with gags in their mouths. You recognize them from the milk cartons.



In the particular place you live, there is no law that says you need to report any witnessed crime of any type. And the cable company has no policy whatsoever about reporting crimes.



Would it be unfair to judge you for doing a bangup job installing the cable, walking out the door and never thinking to alert law enforcement? You've done the job of installing cable to the best standards. You're within the law.

Mueller gave a thorough report on the criminal activity he investigated, your metaphor is tortured in the extreme (no pun intended).



I contend that there are other standards to judge behavior on beyond whether it's legal and within a job description. And I think you agree with me, otherwise criticism couldn't be "unfair" unless it were illegal or prohibited by a job description.

The actions you wanted him to take are both illegal and prohibited in the role he functioned in.

If you don't like that being the case, much like almost everything else to do with it, your issue is with Congress. Both for neutering the SCO and for not acting on the still damning remnants of the report even after the AG redacted it to hell.
 
The more I read about history, the more that I think the myth that anything gets done through boyscout levels of integrity is BS.

Look at MLK.
Martin Luther King Jr.
(January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American Baptist minister and activist who became the most visible spokesperson and leader in the civil rights movement from 1955 until his assassination in 1968.
...and don't think they wouldn't do it.

Segnosaur said:
The problem are the ~40% of people who continue to support Trump, regardless of whatever racist or idiotic comment he makes. Those are the people who will not 'read the report', or if they did, wouldn't understand what exactly they were reading. Those are the people who will hear the comment by Mueller about how 'It doesn't exonerate him' and fail to make the connection that "Trump said it exonerated him, Mueller said it didn't. Trump must be lying".
True. Or more accurately, would willfully avoid understanding it.

Its those people who need to be presented with simple, direct statements, like "Trump lied about exoneration", and "Barr lied about white house cooperation"
But they already have simple, direct statements from Trump saying it's all Fake News. Who to believe? The President of the United States, who is single-handedly making America great again - or some Hillary loving witch hunter who is out to get him?
 
And you keep on ignoring it

He met the obligations that he was required to.

Judgement by people that have an agenda and little clue what they're talking about.

Lying and cheating tend to be considered wrong by most people

He is a Lawyer. Who wrote a legal document. For another lawyer. Why would you expect it to be anything else?

No, those that are empowering those criminals are the ones that are refusing to take action on the facts that have been presented to them.

No, it was not his job to make allegations and partisan sound bytes for TV. It was his job to collect the facts, make determinations of whether to prosecute or not, the create a report for the AG explaining the legal decisions that were made. With the sole exception of prosecution of the President where he explained their reasoning for not making a decision, that is exactly what he did.

You are complaining that he didn't go beyond his mandate and act in a Partisan manner, something he was never going to do.
So you guys who are happy Mueller didn't act on evidence Trump runs a criminal enterprise are claiming those of us who don't see it that way somehow have the disappointment causing us to not see clearly.

Looks to me like the people happy with the muted outcome are the ones with their blinders on.
 
So you guys who are happy Mueller didn't act on evidence Trump runs a criminal enterprise are claiming those of us who don't see it that way somehow have the disappointment causing us to not see clearly.

Looks to me like the people happy with the muted outcome are the ones with their blinders on.

It has nothing to do with being happy or disappointed. Heck I'd have happily cheered Mueller walking into the Oval Office with a pair of handcuffs. It'd likely have been as illegal as hell, and I'm a little disappointed he didn't do it, just as I'm disappointed that he didn't lock Don Jr up for his part in the Trump Tower meeting, or at least rake him over the hot coals for it and see what else came out, but at the same time I'm not going to attack Mueller because he didn't go beyond his mandate and fulfill my Trump Incarceration wetdreams either.

It's that funny part of being a skeptic, you need to leave your personal feelings at the gate and rely on the facts, accepting where they take you, even if it's somewhere you don't like.
 
Exactly, if we don't agree we must have no clue.

I have a clue and I think I've been very clear about what I think Mueller could have legally done but did not do.

I disagree, I have seen you repeatedly go on about why did Mueller give the report to the AG, so either you don't know the law, or you are ignoring it and hoping no one else does. Either way, my statement was apt.

ETA: Also he could have done a lot of things that were legal, the question though is not are they legal, but rather, are they inside the scope of his job?
 
Last edited:
You're wrong PW. Believe whatever you want, that doesn't make you right. We are at an impasse.

Because Mueller had more than one reason doesn't mean he didn't say what I heard him say. Oh look, you were wrong, what a surprise!

He also said it would be "unfair" to even suggest Trump had committed a crime, because it would deprive him of the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law.... given Mueller felt he couldn't indict a sitting POTUS. Keep in mind not charging a sitting POTUS is merely a DoJ opinion, not something in the law or tested in court.

Mueller could have challenged that DoJ opinion.
 
Last edited:
It is simply false of Mueller to claim that he couldn't have indicted Trump - of course he could have.
There is no law that would have stopped him, just a DOJ memo that has been successfully challenged in the past.
Mueller didn't want the hassle of going after Trump, hoping that others would do it for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom