Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. He said that if the investigation [HAD] proved he didn't commit a crime, he would [HAVE SAID] 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.

ftfy.

I should not be surprised you would twist the actual words into a bizarre configuration.

"had proved" "would have said so"

You left those very important words out.

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.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

And if you read on he explains a guilty verdict would need a formal application that Trump could reply to. It doesn't mean Mueller has doubts.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

How would you suggest Mueller states he thinks Trump committed crimes when Mueller said he cannot formally say so?

Remember, Mueller said if he COULD HAVE exonerated Trump he WOULD HAVE.

But, why am I bothering?

 

[theprestige]

So mentioning what he was arrested for is not only nonsensical, it's now also dishonest? And you call my post nonsensical? [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716695cf5b21e58722.png[/qimg]

Your attempt to relate it to the topic of the thread.

 

[theprestige]

How would you suggest Mueller states he thinks Trump committed crimes when Mueller said he cannot formally say so?

If he can't, I would suggest he shouldn't.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

To establish the crime of obstruction of justice there are three elements required. In the Mueller report there were numerous cases where he outlined all three elements. An obstructive act, a nexus to an ongoing investigation, and motive. Having all three de facto indicates a crime was committed.

 

[Stacyhs]

Your attempt to relate it to the topic of the thread.

Wow. Have you thought of applying for the position of WH Spokesperson back up? Your ability to twist things rivals that of Sarah Sanders.

The topic of the damn thread is THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. That means anything related to THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION is relevant. George Nader, a MUELLER INVESTIGATION WITNESS, was arrested for child porn. I didn't create the charges, I merely reported what he was arrested for. Did I insinuate in any way that Trump had anything to do with child porn? No. I repeat: your reaction to my post is just odd.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If he can't, I would suggest he shouldn't.

Well tough luck, Mueller did.

 

[Upchurch]

To establish the crime of obstruction of justice there are three elements required. In the Mueller report there were numerous cases where he outlined all three elements. An obstructive act, a Nexus to an ongoing investigation, and motive. Having all three de facto indicates a crime was committed.

Yep. Mueller didn’t state that Trump committed obstruction justice. What he did was show that several of Trump’s actions met all the necessary criteria to fit the legal definition of obstruction. 4-10 times.

So far, the only people who don’t understand that are the people who don’t seem to have read the report, but love to tell those who have what it says.

 

[Tero]

If there was any exchange between Trump and any Russian, it would not be money (other than shady real estate) but would have been quid provquo.

That is why Trump must obstruct.

 

[smartcooky]

If there was any exchange between Trump and any Russian, it would not be money (other than shady real estate) but would have been quid provquo.

That is why Trump must obstruct.

This is what many are missing; that Trump got help from the Russians in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against them.

We already know that Mike Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about his communications with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition in Late 2016. We know that those communications were about the lifting of sanctions; he was telling the Russians not to worry about the sanctions Obama just imposed, and to not retaliate again the US, because pretty soon they would be in power, and they were going to make all the sanctions go away - its the payoff for Putin.

This is one of those rare occasions when the "follow the money" mantra might not apply.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Wow! Your ability to tell outright, verifiable lies about what was said is exceeded only by your ability to twist yourself into a pretzel to defend your Dear Leader!

"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."

There is ONE and only ONE way to interpret this.. and it ain't yours

 

[kellyb]

Yep. Mueller didn’t state that Trump committed obstruction justice. What he did was show that several of Trump’s actions met all the necessary criteria to fit the legal definition of obstruction. 4-10 times.

So far, the only people who don’t understand that are the people who don’t seem to have read the report, but love to tell those who have what it says.

Furthermore, he went on to outline the cases AGAINST those actions meeting the criteria of obstruction, and then followed that with why he thought those cases were BS.

 

[Ziggurat]

How would you suggest Mueller states he thinks Trump committed crimes when Mueller said he cannot formally say so?

Mueller never said he cannot say Trump committed crimes. You simply made that up. Mueller said that he should not say Trump committed crimes.

And this is actually a perverse standard which fails to achieve its own claimed goals, since it lets stand an implication of guilt which so many (including you) believe even if that implication would fail normal prosecutorial standards.

Remember, Mueller said if he COULD HAVE exonerated Trump he WOULD HAVE.

But, why am I bothering?

I have no idea why you are bothering, since even with the bother you continue to fail. The lack of exoneration includes both the possibility that Trump is guilty AND the possibility that he is innocent but hasn't been proven so. This should be obvious. And yet you can't see it, even when it is explained to you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow! Your ability to tell outright, verifiable lies about what was said is exceeded only by your ability to twist yourself into a pretzel to defend your Dear Leader!

"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."

There is ONE and only ONE way to interpret this.. and it ain't yours

Actually, it is mine. You haven't proven that I lied, you've proven that your reading comprehension sucks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Zig, your posts come from Lala land. There's no point in a discussion with you when all you are doing is insisting your beliefs without supporting them with evidence, and ignoring or denying the evidence presented refuting your imaginary version of reality.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

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.

Just one question:

do you consider the findings of the Mueller report more or less serious than those of the Starr report?

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig, your posts come from Lala land. There's no point in a discussion with you when all you are doing is insisting your beliefs without supporting them with evidence, and ignoring or denying the evidence presented refuting your imaginary version of reality.

Everything you said there except one you have exactly backwards. I'm the one who presented evidence, and you're the one ignoring and denying it. The one thing you got right is that there's no point in you discussing this with me.

 

[Cabbage]

Mueller never said he cannot say Trump committed crimes. You simply made that up. Mueller said that he should not say Trump committed crimes.

And this is actually a perverse standard which fails to achieve its own claimed goals, since it lets stand an implication of guilt which so many (including you) believe even if that implication would fail normal prosecutorial standards.



I have no idea why you are bothering, since even with the bother you continue to fail. The lack of exoneration includes both the possibility that Trump is guilty AND the possibility that he is innocent but hasn't been proven so. This should be obvious. And yet you can't see it, even when it is explained to you.

...not juxtaposed with the rest of the report. You know, the one you really ought to try reading sometime, bro.

 

[tanabear]

The Steele Dossier was revealed to the public by Buzzfeed on January 10, 2017. That's well AFTER the election. What kind of election interference are you claiming it caused, exactly? The FBI was completely silent about that and anything else negative to Trump and there were apparently agents who pumped out LIES and significant pressure to hurt Hillary and help Trump. Really, the whole "The Left are being hypocritical" nonsense on display here is based on straw man arguments and nonsense.
After reading the Mueller Report, the concerns from then still look to be clearly warranted. Even moreso if one adds on Trump and his Administration's actual actions regarding Russia after he officially became President.

Given the statements in the Mueller Report, the conclusion that Mifsud was acting as an intermediary to the Russian government is far from unreasonable, though not certain beyond any unreasonable doubt, as some right-wing propaganda demands for it to be. It does look like Mueller was wary of decisively concluding it based on insufficient information available, though. Insufficient in fair part because of the lies of a member of the Trump campaign - just one of the ways in which the Trump campaign's lies materially interfered with investigation of the matter.
Hmm? You're saying that the Russian nationals involved weren't Russians? How interesting.

Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS were peddling the information in the dossier to the FBI and media BEFORE the election. On 09/23/2016 Michael Isikoff published a Yahoo News article about Carter Page's trip to Moscow in July of 2016 based off information in the dossier. New York Magazine published on November 1st, 2016 an article entitled,

"Final ‘October Surprises’ Reveal FBI Is Probing Trump’s Alleged Russia Ties."
- http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/final-october-surprises-fbi-probing-trumps-russia-ties.html

It reads in part,
"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid alleged that the FBI is sitting on “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.” Reid has been known to make wild accusations close to an election, but apparently this one was (sort of) true. According to the New York Times, the FBI spent much of the summer investigating the many allegations regarding Trump’s ties to Russia. The wide-reaching probe, which is reportedly ongoing, looked at his advisers, his financial activities, and the hack of Democratic officials..."

Read the article, it is replete with BS from the dossier.

Note: This is before the election. So information in the dossier was put out to the media and influenced the election of 2016. Yahoo News, New York Magazine, and Harry Reid certainly get more views than "Facebook ads."

So Christopher Steele(a foreigner) reached out to other foreigners(Russians) and created disinformation on Trump and it was put out to the FBI and media BEFORE the election. So why weren't the DNC, the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele investigated for colluding with Russia? And why isn't the Left outraged that disinformation from Russian sources was used to influence the 2016 election in this manner? Because this entire Russian collusion nonsense is just a pre-text to launch a coup against Trump.

p.s. If Joseph Mifsud is a Russian agent then why is he being protected by western governments?

it's a bit of sophistry to defend your position with an idea (Russia is not our enemy) that requires its own entire thread and will contain many sub-arguments and which goes against well-established thought, including Republican thought for many decades, right up until, about, 2016 or so.

In the 2012 election it was the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, who expressed more hostility to Russia than Obama. Four years later both Republicans and Democrats assumed Russia to be a "hostile foreign power". However, I don't care about mainstream thought, which is largely just propaganda for the war machine. How does Russia threaten Americans?

First, I didn't just start following these events yesterday. I know all about the faux issues Trump has created with his propaganda..

Okay, so what is your opinion of Mifsud? Russian agent or western asset?
p.s. Also what about Charles Tawil? Legit businessman or something else.

That is not what you asked. I'm now asking you if you're changing your request.
So you accept their conclusions, then? What more is there to say?

Yes, the War on Terror is really a thing. Iraq had WMD and links to Al-Qaeda, and we are fighting all these wars in the middle-east to spread democracy. Why would anyone question any of those things?

 

[Aridas]

The aversion to source material is a feature of right-wing ideologies.

Ugh. Should I thank you for reminding me of the numerous times when a Republican friend or family member has repeated a right-winger's claim that showed that just fine? As a general rule, I've given their claims a fair hearing, but I'm becoming less and less inclined to do so when their positions are rooted in garbage about 97% of the time.

However, what was really happening with the McGahn situation was that Trump thought Mueller was on a "witch hunt". Trump thought Mueller was biased and was being unfair. He thought the investigation was a waste of time and money.

That's believeable only if you assume that a pathological liar is telling the truth, despite plenty of reason to believe otherwise.

It was not within Mueller's power to indict Trump. It was within Mueller's power to conclude that Trump committed a crime. Mueller refused to do so, and refused explicitly.

To quote Mueller on this, -

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view — that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, 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.

The highlighted is especially important when it comes to your line of argument. Sorry, your argument is simply wrong-headed. He refused explicitly because there could be no court resolution because of the circumstances. Nothing to do with whether it would qualify as a crime or not.



Anyways, in other news, it looks like the Mueller investigation may well have uncovered to child pornography offenses of another of Trump and his Administration's pedophile friends. George Nader, this time.

Nader has just been arrested again for peddling in child pornography, to include child bestiality. Feel free to read the charging affidavit, if you have the stomach for it. Suffice it to say that it is some stomach churning stuff for someone the President of the United States overrode Secret Service objections to have his picture taken with.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

First, I didn't just start following these events yesterday. I know all about the faux issues Trump has created with his propaganda..

Okay, so what is your opinion of Mifsud? Russian agent or western asset?
p.s. Also what about Charles Tawil? Legit businessman or something else.

Why does this matter? Are you suggesting Trump was framed. Or are you going with a 4th Amendment technicality, "illegal search and seizure"?