- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,603
- 2,521
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It does not make sense to make this jab when I was responding to your argument, specifically your choice of words, apparently your poor choice of words. This is less about semantics and more about you apparently did not choose the best wording to unambiguously express your thoughts. I am not a gypsy well versed in the art of mind reading to discern what you meant to say, and neither am I the pythia in the temple divining your true thoughts.
Thanks for disclosing your speculation. Any other speculative beliefs you want to share about what other people may think? A double shot of fallacious reasoning, wrapped into one phrase. You speculate as to what others believe and speculate as to the number of them. By the way, is it a popularity contest? Hmm? The number of people you speculate about is significant apparently. As if the number itself somehow showed your view was correct.
If for a moment you believe that speculating about what other people think, and the number of people you have speculated about, constitutes as a logical, lucid, rational rebuttal, you are very mistaken.
Purely speculative. This view is nothing more than your “subjective appraisal of the content.” You are correct, your view is not explicitly stated in the Report.
Mueller is talking about prosecutorial judgment. Mueller is not discussing a judgment in some other sense or meaning outside of prosecutorial judgment. Mueller is not indicating he wanted to avoid a “de facto determination.” Mueller declined and avoided making a prosecutorial judgment. Mueller is declining to say whether, in his estimation as a prosecutor, Trump committed an offense of obstruction of justice.
Perhaps equally important is the fact that for someone seeking to avoid a "de facto determination" Mueller certainly acted rather oddly. He gave a very detailed account of the facts but did not end with a mere citing to the facts. If Mueller wanted to avoid a "de facto judgment" then he would have merely cited to the facts of each instance he construed as possibly constituting as obstruction and then merely cited to the applicable or possibly applicable obstruction of justice statues and ended his Report on obstruction. That is avoiding a "de facto judgment."
But Mueller went further, he provided an analysis, what the legal profession formally calls "legal analysis," of those facts in relation to each element of obstruction, more than one theory of obstruction to be exact, and that alone risks a "de facto judgment." Indeed, it is inescapable that an analysis of the facts to each element of obstruction of justice risks a "de facto judgment." For someone who, as you profess, to have an aversion to risking a "de facto judgment," Mueller engaging in a legal analysis is an odd, no, a contradictory approach.
This dilemma is exacerbated when, in some areas, Mueller's analysis is rather strong! For someone seeking to avoid a "de facto judgment" it does not make sense for some areas of the Report to have a very strong analysis regarding obstruction. A strong analysis inherently has the risk of a "de facto judgment." Indeed, some people in the legal field and non-legal field have concluded, after reading the Mueller report, that Mueller believed he had enough evidence, but not merely enough evidence, but a strong case of obstruction. They make that conclusion, in part, but in no small part, on the basis of Mueller's analysis itself, including the strength of his analysis in some areas. That is to be expected when A.) providing a legal analysis and B.) at times providing a strong legal analysis.
So, it is dubious Mueller wanted to avoid, as you say, a "de facto judgment." No, he specifically avoided making a prosecutorial judgment.
A plausible alternative? No. It is an alternative, it may be a true alternative, I suspect it could true, but its plausibility is lacking since there is no language in the Report to indicate Mueller also wanted to avoid make a "de facto" judgment along with declining to make a "prosecutorial judgment." Its plausibility is also lacking by virtue of the fact Mueller provided a legal analysis of the facts to the elements of the obstruction statute and at times gave a strong analysis, contradictory conduct for someone seeking to avoid a "de facto judgment."
Let’s assume my argument needs that assumption. (My argument absolutely does not need this assumption because my claim was not if Mueller believed the evidence was “strong” then he would have so stated.) But let’s assume your statement above is an assumption my argument makes.
There’s nothing in the Report you’ve cited to indicate Mueller did not want to do so or was precluded from doing so and this includes any notion of making a "de facto judgment." Mueller declining to make a prosecutorial judgment does not preclude him from expressing the strength of the evidence against Trump. Indeed at times in the Report, Mueller provides a strong legal analysis, something your rebuttal suggests should not exist since he is avoiding a "de facto" judgment.
In framing your rebuttal, you have equivocated declining to make a prosecutorial judgment with also declining to evaluate the evidence in such a manner as to indicate the evidence is strong. But Mueller doesn’t say that, and he explicitly says he chose not to make a prosecutorial judgment, and does not say he sought to avoid any other kind of judgment, and at times does present a strong legal analysis.
Now, my claim, my actual claim, which led to this dialogue, was that Mueller did not believe he had enough evidence. See my post # 77, see your post # 131. That is my actual claim, as opposed to your manufactured argument of "Mueller would present the evidence as strong if he believed it was such." It is a subtle distinction but an important one.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
