Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
... In particular, demonstrating corrupt intent is going to be a hard one if you wanted to prosecute Trump for any of this. ...
Click to expand...
Mind boggling you would claim it was hard to prove intent when Trump was blatantly public about wanting shut the witch hunt down.
 
Just like Trump is immune to charges of lying to investigators (because he has always lied), he cannot possibly obstruct with corrupt intent - because he is corrupt regardless of the circumstances.
The Voters wanted a criminal, therefore committing crimes cannot be impeachable.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not equivalent. There are laws against running a red light. There is no law or even rule against Mueller deciding whether or not Trump committed a prosecutable crime. There's a rule against indicting him, but you don't need to indict him to make that determination.
Click to expand...

You must be terribly disappointed with Mueller who could have, in your opinion, but didn't directly accuse Trump.

You are trying to infer motive that differs from the motive Mueller himself directly stated.
 
Ziggurat said:
I didn't make any claim as to why he refused to do so, so how is it possible for a stated motive to contradict a position that doesn't depend upon motive?

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.
Click to expand...

And you just hate that.

Oh how better it would be for your cause if Mueller had been even more of a Boy Scout and NOT stated that had the evidence cleared Trump he would have said so.

Darn that Mueller for so cleverly and maliciously inserting that fly into the Trumpublican ointment!

And a damned good thing he at least went that far. Otherwise the Ts (they're no longer the Rs) would be utterly insufferable.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Mind boggling you would claim it was hard to prove intent when Trump was blatantly public about wanting shut the witch hunt down.
Click to expand...

The intent issue isn't a question of whether or not Trump wanted the investigation stopped. It's a question of why he wanted it stopped.
 
Ziggurat said:
The intent issue isn't a question of whether or not Trump wanted the investigation stopped. It's a question of why he wanted it stopped.
Click to expand...

I guess that if Trump wanted the investigation shut down only because it gave Melania heartburn, that would totally absolve him. Hmmm?
 
Ziggurat said:
The intent issue isn't a question of whether or not Trump wanted the investigation stopped. It's a question of why he wanted it stopped.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the report goes through that. Some situations it concludes are insufficient. Some in concludes are sufficient. What is your problem with, say, Volume II, Section II.I.c?
 
Last edited:
If Muller discussed indictment Zig would be complaining because DoJ rules forbid indicting a sitting president. If Muller had gone the political route and spoon fed Congress articles of impeachment Zig would be complaining that about him getting too political. What Muller did was simply present the evidence against the President and leave it up to the political machinery to handle impeachment, and Zig complains about that because he never states a conclusion on guilt. Of course if Muller had made statements on guilt, he’d be arguing that deciding guilt or innocence isn’t Law enforcements role.

Lets face facts here, to Zig it never mattered what was in the report, then only conclusion he was ever willing to accept was exoneration. He’d have been willing to accept exoneration with a cursory hand wave but no amount of evidence for guilt would ever sufficed.
 
Ziggurat said:
The intent issue isn't a question of whether or not Trump wanted the investigation stopped. It's a question of why he wanted it stopped.
Click to expand...

He said WHY more than once "Because of this Rusher thing." You can't fight using your technicality because it's not true.

And the staff members that turned on him clearly said what Trump's motives were.


And don't go round the mulberry bush claiming the why was legit in Trump's mind. You're the only one here denying reality on the obstruction charges.
 
Volume II Section II.E.c is also a good one. It contains the infamous "[t]his is the end of my Presidency" line, but stops just short of "I'm ******".

Anyway, Zig, what is your problem with the report's analysis of Trump's intent in that section? I remember thinking that one was particularly cringe-worthy for Trump.
 
Lurch said:
I guess that if Trump wanted the investigation shut down only because it gave Melania heartburn, that would totally absolve him. Hmmm?
Click to expand...
:D

Just a guess but I think Zig is going for: Trump wanted to shut it down because with no evidence of outright collusion, Trump's "why"/motive/intent was justified.

But what all the Trump supporters are leaving out is that the investigation Trump tried to shut down was the investigation into Russian meddling in the election.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Just a guess but I think Zig is going for: Trump wanted to shut it down because with no evidence of outright collusion, Trump's "why"/motive/intent was justified.
Click to expand...

My guess is that Zig is going for a "We can never really know why anyone does anything, therefore one can never prove another's intent." Perhaps with some accusations of mind-reading and whatnot.

The problem is that this is the double-edged nature of relying on the law. While one can claim that one's hero is innocent because he has not been proven guilty, you also risk a lower bar for things like determining intent. You don't need to have absolute proof that something happened to make a legal determination, just good enough.
 
Going through this thing the first time was a big effort, but I came away with what I thought was a pretty good understanding. As I'm going back through piecemeal, a lot of things are fitting together more easily.

Now I'm wondering if a second full read-through is worth the time, or if going back and re-reading relevant sections to what I'm discussing is enough.

Has anyone gone through this, front-to-back, multiple times? Was it worth it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom