Mueller says messaging apps likely destroyed Trump-Russia evidence

[Pommer]

Allanwdavid, for instance. Ringo would be another.

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



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.




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.

An opinion piece in the Washington Post does not trump (ahem) DOJ policy.
Thus Endeth the lesson.

 

[Verv]

An opinion piece in the Washington Post does not trump (ahem) DOJ policy.
Thus Endeth the lesson.

Can the President be impeached for breaking the law?

Is that a thing that happens?

Your "lesson" seems to be rather incomplete, Pommer.

We have yet to see one of these people insisting how clear it is that Pres. Trump should be impeached & charged to come here and provide us with the evidence that would definitively prove that.

 

[Allandavid]

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.

For Pete’s sake Verv......read the bloody report!

 

[Belk]

But the President can be indicted:

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

This appears to be behind a pay wall. The president being able to be indicted is an open question. Regardless Mueller specifically stated he is prohibited from indicting.

And the President can face impeachment.

Which is being considered.

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

According to whom?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Unless they literally destroyed the devices they can get that stuff back usually by court order (cell phone companies and other places like that keep records for a long time if not forever). If Muller feels that that is the case then he should get those records.

 

[KCfromNC]

Allanwdavid, for instance. Ringo would be another.

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

I'd be more comfortable if you could show some actual quotes here.

I am referring back to the runaway speculation in the OP

For some reason the quote you mentioned doesn't actually appear in the OP. Hence my previous request for actual quotes that do exist before continuing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Unless they literally destroyed the devices they can get that stuff back usually by court order (cell phone companies and other places like that keep records for a long time if not forever). If Muller feels that that is the case then he should get those records.

The top law enforcement agency in the country doesn't seem to think so. Or is using this to hide that the do have access to them but the methods are classified.

In any case, given their assertion vs. a random one on the internet I know who I'll believe.

 

[Allandavid]

Unless they literally destroyed the devices they can get that stuff back usually by court order (cell phone companies and other places like that keep records for a long time if not forever). If Muller feels that that is the case then he should get those records.

Mueller has closed his case.

By the way, why would someone want to cane their kidney...?

 

[Verv]

I'd be more comfortable if you could show some actual quotes here.
...
For some reason the quote you mentioned doesn't actually appear in the OP. Hence my previous request for actual quotes that do exist before continuing.

Aw, right, but it requires some effort to distinguish satire, right, because I believe you are referencing when I was making fun of the attitude that folks had towards the Mueller report and the desire for journalists to & others to keep blowing smoke up people's behinds.

I think you knew that was the case but just have no desire to be charitable in discussion to others, but I don't know.

 

[KCfromNC]

Aw, right, but it requires some effort to distinguish satire, right, because I believe you are referencing when I was making fun of the attitude that folks had towards the Mueller report and the desire for journalists to & others to keep blowing smoke up people's behinds.

It would be instructive to quote those who you're now claiming not to be actually quoting, just for comparison. Would make it easier to see who exactly is blowing smoke, to use your words.

I think you knew that was the case but just have no desire to be charitable in discussion to others, but I don't know.

It is thoughts like these which push me towards wanting to see primary sources rather than your interpretation of them.

 

[Verv]

It would be instructive to quote those who you're now claiming not to be actually quoting, just for comparison. Would make it easier to see who exactly is blowing smoke, to use your words.

It is thoughts like these which push me towards wanting to see primary sources rather than your interpretation of them.

So there are two things for me to take away from this:

I. A guy named KC has very high standards for quoting and posting here. I get it. However, I think this is largely motivated by disagreeing with my politics than actually caring about posting styles.

We can just post by our own styles and try to minimize criticism of one another's styles, but I will keep it in my mind that someone here might take issue with it.

I'll try to improve a little, and you can try to improve a little, too, and perhaps that will minimize our conflict.

II. Primary sources are great. Feel free to quote copiously from them. I love them.

I have challenged the other users in this thread to give me some material about why Pres. Trump ought ot be charged, or why there is some massive barrier for him to not be charged which is preventing the normal course of action.

Feel free to use some primary sources and make an excellent argument for it.

So fa,r I just have people telling me I should read the 300 page report or shut up.

But the fact of the matter is that I do not have the time to read something like that -- since you are a primary source guy and believe so strongly on that, perhaps you could take that burden on.

 

[KCfromNC]

So there are two things for me to take away from this:

I. A guy named KC has very high standards for quoting and posting here. I get it. However, I think this is largely motivated by disagreeing with my politics than actually caring about posting styles.

People think lots of things. Many of them false, as this example shows. It is why I said earlier that it would be more convincing if you could quote what you're actually discussing rather than telling us what you think you read.

 

[Verv]

People think lots of things. Many of them false, as this example shows. It is why I said earlier that it would be more convincing if you could quote what you're actually discussing rather than telling us what you think you read.

I can see why a guy who can't distinguish my satirical take on something from an actual article would think that I thought I was quoting something.

For your benefit, then, I will keep it in my mind that I might have to put special marks in my posts or some such if you require it.

Thanks for keeping me abreast of your needs.

 

[KCfromNC]

I can see why a guy who can't distinguish my satirical take on something from an actual article would think that I thought I was quoting something.

Interesting attempt at backtracking, but weird you didn't clear that up immediately.
But yeah, it makes more sense that this was just a joke. To be honest, it is kinda hard to take claims that the Mueller investigation cleared Trump very seriously, given what's in the actual report.

 

[Verv]

Interesting attempt at backtracking, but weird you didn't clear that up immediately.
But yeah, it makes more sense that this was just a joke. To be honest, it is kinda hard to take claims that the Mueller investigation cleared Trump very seriously, given what's in the actual report.

Alright, would you like to tell us what is in the actual report that we are missing?

I was asking about that last week and all I have seen is a lot of bold insistence that this is the case.

Would you like to make the case?

 

[yougottabekidding]

Apps such as Snapchat, for example, delete messages once they have been viewed, and the company says it deletes all messages from its servers after 30 days. WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram and Viber are some of the apps that offer end-to-end encryption of messages. The report does not mention which individuals may have used such apps.
​

This statement exposes the bias in the articles title - along with it's author -

Using an app that automatically deletes a message once it is viewed is NOT the person deleting the message. It is not like deleting thousands of emails after receiving a subpoena for them, then physically destroying the multiple devices.

Much ado about nothing to make the President look band - nothing more, nothing less.

and the American Public is waking up to it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Alright, would you like to tell us what is in the actual report that we are missing?

I was asking about that last week and all I have seen is a lot of bold insistence that this is the case.

Would you like to make the case?

What case? The one where a report which lists “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” doesn't clear Trump? OK, seems easy enough just by quoting from the report. Oh wait, I just did.

 

[Verv]

What case? The one where a report which lists “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” doesn't clear Trump? OK, seems easy enough just by quoting from the report. Oh wait, I just did.

So they were capable of exerting undue influence over the investigation.

But there is nothing that says that they did. Indeed, the fact that he was not charged for obstructing justice and there appears to be no plans for anyone to charge him on that ground seems like an exoneration, does it not?

Theoretically, every single time I am on the highway driving 12 KPH over the speed limit I am doing acts capable of being interpreted as speeding and reckless driving, but I have never been pulled over for a speeding violation in my life.

You get excited about language that hints something untoward could have happened, but there is zero substantiation -- hence the zero follow through from the government.

Tell me, KC, do you think the entire US justice department is dropping the ball on this? Or maybe, just maybe, some journalists and yourself are way too taken in by your own exaggerations and narrative?

 

[KCfromNC]

So they were capable of exerting undue influence over the investigation.

But there is nothing that says that they did.

You seem to be saying this unaware of the actual contents of Volume II of the report. I'd suggest taking a look before continuing.

Indeed, the fact that he was not charged for obstructing justice and there appears to be no plans for anyone to charge him on that ground seems like an exoneration, does it not?

No. But then again, I've read the relevant parts of the report.

Theoretically, every single time I am on the highway driving 12 KPH over the speed limit I am doing acts capable of being interpreted as speeding and reckless driving, but I have never been pulled over for a speeding violation in my life.

Relevance?

You get excited about language

Excited? Citation needed.

that hints something untoward could have happened, but there is zero substantiation -- hence the zero follow through from the government.

This is inconsistent with the actual content of the report. Is this another attempt at satire?

Tell me, KC, do you think the entire US justice department is dropping the ball on this? Or maybe, just maybe, some journalists and yourself are way too taken in by your own exaggerations and narrative?

Nope. Thanks for asking, though.

 

[Verv]

You seem to be saying this unaware of the actual contents of Volume II of the report. I'd suggest taking a look before continuing.

So there is the 300 page report... And there is a Volume II to that, as well? Or is this just a different section of the report?

Surely, if there are 300 pages+ full of reasons why you think President Trump is guilty, you would be able to expound on that for us here.

Instead, you just keep telling us to go do your work for you.

I'm reading some G. K. Chesterton, Hinduism: an Alternative History, and The Philokalia, and this is in addition to regularly perusing the Bible, and I spend a good amount of time each day studying language and playing chess. I got a dog and a fiancee, a lot of podcasts I try to make it through regularly... There's a lot on my plate.

Did you read the report?

When I read things, I cut/copy/paste quotations & save them to Evernote or Google docs. I recommend it.