Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Ziggurat]

If one micro-analyzes too much, one tends to forget about the importance of context, wouldn't you say?

Indeed. As you forgot the context of no quotes from you was the debate between you and me, not between you and other people.

 

[Upchurch]

Indeed. As you forgot the context of no quotes from you was the debate between you and me, not between you and other people.

You missed it. Again.

The Obama years really took its toll, it seems.

 

[Belz...]

If Upchurch objects to personalization, I'll certainly hear him out on that point. I've seen no indication that he does, though.

...what?

 

[Paul2]

I'm getting at the fact that determining the president committed a crime is different than indicting the president. DOJ policy prohibits the latter. It does not prohibit the former.

Let me try to cut to the chase: Zigs, do you agree that the Mueller report, and especially Volume II, part II ("Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation") establishes and demonstrates that there is at least one case of Trump obstructing justice?

 

[Ziggurat]

Let me try to cut to the chase: Zigs, do you agree that the Mueller report, and especially Volume II, part II ("Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation") establishes and demonstrates that there is at least one case of Trump obstructing justice?

No, I do not agree.

 

[Belz...]

No, I do not agree.

What would be the threshold for obstructing justice by a sitting President, then? The least egregious thing you'd consider a case of obstruction, that is.

 

[Upchurch]

No, I do not agree.

How very loyal.

 

[Paul2]

No, I do not agree.

Part II of volume II describes Presidential behavior such that it meets all three elements necessary to establish obstructions. So, do you

1. deny that the President behaved in the manner described?

2. deny that some behavior, described accurately, is actually one of the three elements?

3. deny that obstruction is defined by those three elements?

or something else?

 

[Ziggurat]

What would be the threshold for obstructing justice by a sitting President, then? The least egregious thing you'd consider a case of obstruction, that is.

Lying to investigators, probably.

 

[Belz...]

Lying to investigators, probably.

Just to be clear: that is the lowest form of obstruction for you, correct?

Assuming that's correct, could you then tell me what's in the report that you consider below that threshold and what, if anything, is above it?

 

[Paul2]

Lying to investigators, probably.

It sounds like you are defining the threshold for obstruction as what you think it should properly be, rather than what the law currently says. Or are you saying that the threshold, in the law as it currently reads, is lying to investigators?

 

[Ziggurat]

Part II of volume II describes Presidential behavior such that it meets all three elements necessary to establish obstructions. So, do you

1. deny that the President behaved in the manner described?

2. deny that some behavior, described accurately, is actually one of the three elements?

3. deny that obstruction is defined by those three elements?

or something else?

I don't think the report establishes corrupt intent.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think the report establishes corrupt intent.

Could you explain for a few specific examples why it does not establish this?

 

[Paul2]

To turn things around and to getaway from pummeling Zigs with questions;

The Mueller report establishes that the President committed obstruction of justice, based on the facts laid out in volume II, section II, especially for four or so cases in which the three elements that legally define obstruction of justice are demonstrated to be present in the President's actions.

Zigs, you'll have to counter some part of what I just laid out in order to rationally make a case that the President did not commit obstruction of justice. I'm not sure what else that could be except

1. the purported facts are not actually facts
2. the purported three elements are not actually what defines obstruction of justice
3. some fact that is purported to fit one of the elements of obstruction does not actually fit that element

Take your pick.


ETA: got ninja'd by Zigs, he's already answered this post

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Skeptic ginger's quote is not a real quote, so no, it is not more relevant than a real quote.

To the best of my recollection, he did say that in a press interview after he gave his statement.

I posted the actual quote from his statement a few posts later. So why ignore the subsequent post? It corroborates the post you are trying to discredit Mueller's statement from. It seems you are trying awfully hard for the truth not to be true.


Here, I'll post it again:
Mueller statement: Read the special counsel's full remarks

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

And why they didn't make a determination that a crime was committed was not because there was no evidence as all the Trump supporters are trying to claim. Mueller said exactly why:

we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

That does not say Mueller didn't have enough evidence or he wasn't sure the POTUS committed crimes. Mueller made as clear of a statement as he felt he was allowed to do.

So maybe you might want to stop arguing your unsupported conclusion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just to be clear: that is the lowest form of obstruction for you, correct?

Yes.

Assuming that's correct, could you then tell me what's in the report that you consider below that threshold and what, if anything, is above it?

It's not so simple. There are things which may be more serious, but don't qualify as obstruction because they lack a necessary element. In particular, demonstrating corrupt intent is going to be a hard one if you wanted to prosecute Trump for any of this. I'm not terribly interested in going through every single thing in the report, nor am I terribly interested in ranking seriousness since that's not sufficient.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not terribly interested in going through every single thing in the report, nor am I terribly interested in ranking seriousness since that's not sufficient.

How about just a handful?

 

[Ziggurat]

Could you explain for a few specific examples why it does not establish this?

I'll try to come back to this later, but it will take a while to address properly so I don't have a quick response.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

But if you want to get into it, his stated motive is transparently bull ****. The exact thing he claims he wanted to avoid is the exact thing he actually achieved: making a party look guilty without offering them a formal process to defend themselves.

And yet you say Mueller didn't clearly state Trump committed crimes.

It's odd you would call it partisan when Mueller is on the same side as Trump.

I think Mueller was being diplomatic. And yes, he did essentially make Trump look guilty. He also expected the House to continue and that is where Trump could defend himself.

 

[Paul2]

By the way, here is what Mueller says what corrupt intent is:

"The word 'corruptly' provides the intent element for obstruction of justice and means "knowingly and dishonestly" or "with an improper motive." [citations redacted]

"(to act corruptly means to 'act[) with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct' the relevant proceeding)"

"The requisite showing is made when a person acted with an intent to obtain and 'improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.' "