Mueller says messaging apps likely destroyed Trump-Russia evidence

[Verv]

By whom...??

Many people perceive the Mueller report as clearing Pres. Trump.

I am sure we can play word games about this, right.

... If someone is not charged in a crime, they are... ??? Cleared? Is that acceptable?

We are going to end up playing a semantics game where no one wins because we just have different ideologies and you are being stubborn.

 

[Allandavid]

Many people perceive the Mueller report as clearing Pres. Trump.

I am sure we can play word games about this, right.

... If someone is not charged in a crime, they are... ??? Cleared? Is that acceptable?

We are going to end up playing a semantics game where no one wins because we just have different ideologies and you are being stubborn.

No, far from it. Mueller explained in detail why he has not attempted to lay charges. It has nothing to do with insufficient evidence...it has solely to do with OLC protocols.

 

[Verv]

No, far from it. Mueller explained in detail why he has not attempted to lay charges. It has nothing to do with insufficient evidence...it has solely to do with OLC protocols.

... So the President is literally worthy of being charged right now, it's just that uh, you know, stuff is in the way. Protocols. Bureaucracy. The usual stuff.

I don't believe it.

Care to make your case?

 

[Allandavid]

... So the President is literally worthy of being charged right now, it's just that uh, you know, stuff is in the way. Protocols. Bureaucracy. The usual stuff.

I don't believe it.

Care to make your case?

My “case” is that you haven’t read the report.

If you had, you would understand what is meant by OLC protocols. You would understand why Mueller, on page one, set up an investigative framework based upon those protocols. You would understand why he has not recommended charges for Trump.

But, because you haven’t bothered to read the report, you understand none of that....

 

[Allandavid]

And yes, he is “worthy of being charged right now”....for any of the TEN obstructive interferences that Mueller lists...!

 

[Verv]

I think we have a misunderstanding.

I wanted you to make a case that he should be charged, or to present some information about why these protocols limit everything.

I wasn't interested in being told my opinion is irrelevant because I haven't read the Mueller report and have, instead, contented myself with the common & proper interpretations of the experts.

Why should I believe that American justice is so corrupt and ineffectual that Pres. Trump should be impeached right now.

Make your case -- or don't. Do as you please. But massaging your ego and implying I am a Philistine while failing to be persuasive at all but giving some quick hot takes is not really the greatest of approaches.

 

[KCfromNC]

After someone has been cleared by an investigation, and there was not even enough evidence to charge them with the crime, continuing to construct scenarios by which they are guilty but we just couldn't get them is a bit of a faux pas, isn't it?

Relevance to this thread?

 

[Pommer]

I think we have a misunderstanding.

I wanted you to make a case that he should be charged, or to present some information about why these protocols limit everything.

I wasn't interested in being told my opinion is irrelevant because I haven't read the Mueller report and have, instead, contented myself with the common & proper interpretations of the experts.

Why should I believe that American justice is so corrupt and ineffectual that Pres. Trump should be impeached right now.

Make your case -- or don't. Do as you please. But massaging your ego and implying I am a Philistine while failing to be persuasive at all but giving some quick hot takes is not really the greatest of approaches.

This is rich!
You refuse to read Mueller’s Report, yet the people who have must explain it to you to your satisfaction.
You’re KNG OF THE FORUMS!

 

[Verv]

Relevance to this thread?

The media is full of runaway speculation about this.

Just look at the quote from the OP:

"The special counsel’s office “learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long term retention of data or communication records,”"

What is this? Continuing to construct scenarios by which we can conclude that they are guilty but just couldn't prove it.

It's entirely relevant.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

This is rich!
You refuse to read Mueller’s Report, yet the people who have must explain it to you to your satisfaction.
You’re KNG OF THE FORUMS!

So, I am supposed to read 300 pages before I can comment on this, and the people who claim to have read it and say that there is an air tight case that Pres. Trump is guilty can't be bothered to mine the relevant quotations from it and construct their argument before me?

I think that seems a bit more rich.

Would you like to take up the burden of proving that Pres. Trump should be charged right now?

... Or are you just going to tell me that I have to read 300+ pages to know anything relevant about this.

Did you read those 300+ pages?

 

[Ringo84]

That's what gaslighting is: speaking with authority on things you're proudly ignorant about to convince those not paying much attention (or the more gullible of the opposition*) of whatever propaganda you're trying to spout. It's all Donny's supporters have left.

Honestly, don't even waste your time and effort on it. Everyone knows Donny's guilty as sin. If he weren't, his supporters wouldn't charge into threads like this to say "nuh uh!" to people's discussion about the Mueller report.
Ringo


* Not saying anyone here is gullible. I'm speaking in general terms.

 

[Verv]

That's what gaslighting is: speaking with authority on things you're proudly ignorant about to convince those not paying much attention (or the more gullible of the opposition*) of whatever propaganda you're trying to spout. It's all Donny's supporters have left.
Ringo


* Not saying anyone here is gullible. I'm speaking in general terms.

What would be the proper term for claiming that the Mueller report totally condemns Pres. Trump and he should be charged, but not providing substantial information on it, and just hoping that people who did not read it will assent to your take on it..?

What would be the proper term for the media heavily reporting on "Russia collusion" but having it be unproven in a court of law, and in fact, not meeting the threshold to be brought to court, and continuing to insist that this is all the definitive truth?

The President's supporters have the courts.

The President's detractors, who casually refer to the leader of the free world as "Donny," are the ones that are gaslighting.

 

[Ringo84]

What would be the proper term for claiming that the Mueller report totally condemns Pres. Trump and he should be charged, but not providing substantial information on it, and just hoping that people who did not read it will assent to your take on it..?

Not sure, but you're definitely guilty of the same thing you accuse others of doing. You have no clue what you're talking about, and it's obvious. But you keep daring us to """prove""" to you that Donny is guilty.

You should either do your own research or just stop talking. I can't speak for everyone in this thread, but I'd be willing to bet that they're as sick of this projecting as I am. It's exhausting to have to continually have to reinvent the wheel every time someone Kramers into a thread whining about "total exoneration".
Ringo

 

[Verv]

Not sure, but you're definitely guilty of the same thing you accuse others of doing. You have no clue what you're talking about, and it's obvious. But you keep daring us to """prove""" to you that Donny is guilty.

You should either do your own research or just stop talking. I can't speak for everyone in this thread, but I'd be willing to bet that they're as sick of this projecting as I am. It's exhausting to have to continually have to reinvent the wheel every time someone Kramers into a thread whining about "total exoneration".
Ringo

You know what you could do to make me quiet, Ringo?

Do what the other people in this thread say they can do but they can't actually do.

And that is show us the evidence that would merit bringing Pres. Trump to a court of law, that is definitive and tight, and not highly speculative.

There's nothing in the Mueller report that accomplishes this task. If there was, the President of the United States would be standing trial.

You posture all hard like you can refer to us as "little Donny's supporters" and then bounce back to portraying yourself as a serious, educated debater who sees through me and can call me out for "projection" and accuse me of "gaslighting." Yet... What are you doing?

Contentless posts insisting that you are absolutely right and Pres. Trump is guilty.

 

[KCfromNC]

The media is full of runaway speculation about this.

Can you be a bit more clear? Which investigation cleared who of what, exactly?

Just look at the quote from the OP:

"The special counsel’s office “learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long term retention of data or communication records,”"

What is this? Continuing to construct scenarios by which we can conclude that they are guilty but just couldn't prove it.

If you want me to believe this, I'd like to see some quotes which demonstrate this is happening.

 

[KCfromNC]

What would be the proper term for claiming that the Mueller report totally condemns Pres. Trump and he should be charged, but not providing substantial information on it, and just hoping that people who did not read it will assent to your take on it..?

What would be the proper term for the media heavily reporting on "Russia collusion" but having it be unproven in a court of law, and in fact, not meeting the threshold to be brought to court, and continuing to insist that this is all the definitive truth?

Unless you can demonstrate these things happening, I think the proper term is "off-topic deflection".

 

[Verv]

Can you be a bit more clear? Which investigation cleared who of what, exactly?
---
If you want me to believe this, I'd like to see some quotes which demonstrate this is happening.

Unless you can demonstrate these things happening, I think the proper term is "off-topic deflection".

I was actually in the process of calling out people who insisted on the guilt of Pres. Trump.

Last I checked, the court systems in the West are based on innocent until proven guilty, and you guys were incapable to even assemble the evidence to merit a trial for Pres. Trump or any of his staff concerning something like conspiracy to defraud the American people or treason or anything along the lines that would denote stealing the election.

Why would the burden be on me to prove his innocence after you have failed to prove his guilt?

Plus, you cannot prove a negative.

Which is what this is all about:

"Maybe his guilt was concealed by secret Telegram chats with auto-self-destruct!"

And maybe there's a teapot floating around the sun in a perfect orbit just a couple million miles away from us.

 

[KCfromNC]

I was actually in the process of calling out people who insisted on the guilt of Pres. Trump.

Who are you talking about here?

"Maybe his guilt was concealed by secret Telegram chats with auto-self-destruct!"

Who are you quoting here?

 

[Belk]

You know what you could do to make me quiet, Ringo?

Do what the other people in this thread say they can do but they can't actually do.

And that is show us the evidence that would merit bringing Pres. Trump to a court of law, that is definitive and tight, and not highly speculative.

There's nothing in the Mueller report that accomplishes this task. If there was, the President of the United States would be standing trial.

You posture all hard like you can refer to us as "little Donny's supporters" and then bounce back to portraying yourself as a serious, educated debater who sees through me and can call me out for "projection" and accuse me of "gaslighting." Yet... What are you doing?

Contentless posts insisting that you are absolutely right and Pres. Trump is guilty.

How would the president be standing trial when it is explicitly stated that they will not indict a sitting president?

 

[Verv]

Who are you talking about here?

Allanwdavid, for instance. Ringo would be another.

What, do you dispute that there are people who believe the President is still guilty?

Who are you quoting here?

I am referring back to the runaway speculation in the OP, which I have already addressed for you, KC!

Have I satisfied your questions?

Do you have any more?

I feel like you have asked a series of bad questions not because you actually did not understand what I was doing, but just to be passive aggressive.

How would the president be standing trial when it is explicitly stated that they will not indict a sitting president?

But the President can be indicted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.116b30a62184

And the President can face impeachment.

Yet, the evidence doesn't exist to pursue anything like that.

 

[Speedwell]

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. The President can be removed from office for anything that two thirds of the Congress agrees on.