"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[rjs330]

I don't remember reading that in the SC report or in Mueller's press statement.

I actually think you have poor comprehension skills, well below average.

Mueller never said "We did not determine that President Trump committed an offence because I didn't want to"

What he actually said was
https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644237/robert-mueller-remarks-transcript
"And beyond Department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge"


And Mueller clearly stated that if he concluded that the President had not committed an offence then he would have said so.
"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."

To say that you can't prove a negative is just twisting it.
Mueller and his team are legally adept people. They were looking for crimes. They can quite clearly tell if a scenario is a crime or not.
I go into a shop, I pick up an item, I present that item at the cashier counter, the shop attendant asks me for money, I give them the required money. I leave with the item.

Did I commit a crime?
Answer: No

So given the Obstruction related events documented about Trump's actions, did he commit a crime?
The SC could not claim that he did not commit a crime.

Why?
Hint - it's not because they didn't want to say so. It's because of the stated reasons. Rather than the reason that rjs330 tells us "He didn't want to"

So in other words, he didn't want to. He states reason why he didn't want to. He could have, but didn't. So he didn't want to.

We are in agreement that he didn't find that Trump committed a crime. His statement of if we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime we would have said so, in a way of saying we didn't find he committed a crime. It's basically saying maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That's just a cop.out.

 

[Pommer]

I mean, why not worry about what Mueller had for lunch during the investigation or what color socks he wore? Those are just as "important".

“The argyle defense”?

 

[bhsmte]

So in other words, he didn't want to. He states reason why he didn't want to. He could have, but didn't. So he didn't want to.

We are in agreement that he didn't find that Trump committed a crime. His statement of if we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime we would have said so, in a way of saying we didn't find he committed a crime. It's basically saying maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That's just a cop.out.

This is why mueller needs to testify under oath, as barr did.

I am quite certain, prosecuters incur a lot of investigations, where they cant say a person they investigated did not committ an offense, but they also dont have the evidence to indict.

 

[NotreDame]

What allegations? Mueller didn't alledge he committed a crime. The FBI hasn't alleged anything, the DOJ hasn't alleged anything and there isn't any impeachment proceedings accusing him of committing a crime.

So far those 5 facts have not been interpreted as actual obstruction. Therefore it is only an opinion that he did. He is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

No way! Where there are facts in existence to support a claim, in this instance there are facts to support 5 instances of obstruction/attempted obstruction, of those 5 there are two with very strong evidence in support of obstruction/attempted obstruction, rationally defies the notion "it is only an opinion."

"Only an opinion" is someone merely expressing what they believe, or their thoughts. However, the existence of evidence in support of the belief, notion, or claim, necessarily means there is more than an opinion.

I understand why you want to obfuscate as opposed to addressing the evidence. But ignoring the evidence, and not engaging the evidence, which is what you are doing, and instead just telling everyone the untenable notion "it is only an opinion" is not credible. This is an instance where there does exist evidence to support the claim, the notion, the idea, of obstruction/attempted obstruction, and you persist to ignore this salient point.

 

[rjs330]

You used the word "prosecuted" which was the word I noted you used when I quoted you.



So yes, you did use the word prosecuted just as I noted that you did.



Why would I do that? I never claimed you said "no criminal activity exists".


Do you understand what the "it" refers to? "It" does not refer to all criminal activity. "It" refers to the part in bold which is the criminal activity in Vol. II of the (Mueller) report. I don't know why this not perfectly clear to anyone reading.

I think we have misunderstanding here. I wasn't trying to say that Mueller was supposed to prosecute him. I was saying no one has. I know Mueller couldn't.

There is no criminal activity outlined in volume Ii. It is your opinion that it was criminal. They are only actions. Until he is found guilty they not crimes he committed.

 

[rjs330]

Trump sides with Russia against FBI

After face-to-face talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mr Trump contradicted US intelligence agencies and said there had been no reason for Russia to meddle in the vote.

Mr Putin reiterated that Russia had never interfered in US affairs.

At a news conference after the summit, President Trump was asked if he believed his own intelligence agencies or the Russian president when it came to the allegations of meddling in the elections.

"President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be," he replied.
​

Thanks, I was trying to find something, but couldn't. As I said it was pretty obvious that people from Russia were involved in wrong doing during the election.

 

[Pommer]

There is no criminal activity outlined in volume Ii. It is your opinion that it was criminal. They are only actions. Until he is found guilty they not crimes he committed.

Now you’re just being obstinate.

 

[rjs330]

You'd think it would be a discussion of the evidence, but instead there are a lot of posts questioning why one person didn't do one particular thing he wasn't really allowed to do anyway. Kinda makes one wonder why the post would be hyper-focused on that one talking point instead of wanting to discuss the actual facts of the case.

The majority of the posts are not about what he couldn't do, but what he could have done, but didn't.

 

[bhsmte]

I think we have misunderstanding here. I wasn't trying to say that Mueller was supposed to prosecute him. I was saying no one has. I know Mueller couldn't.

There is no criminal activity outlined in volume Ii. It is your opinion that it was criminal. They are only actions. Until he is found guilty they not crimes he committed.

Mueller was supposed to investigate and gather evidence, which he did. He chose to not make a conclusion on his evidence (which i disagree with), but the evidence is there.

It is in the dems court, what they want to do with the evidence.

 

[rjs330]

Now you’re just being obstinate.

Mueller did not say that Trump committed a crime. I thought we all agreed on that. Those incidents may it may not have been criminal. We don't know.

 

[USincognito]

I think we have misunderstanding here. I wasn't trying to say that Mueller was supposed to prosecute him. I was saying no one has. I know Mueller couldn't.

Thanks for your clarification. I was just responding to the verbiage you used and in the context that you used it.

There is no criminal activity outlined in volume Ii. It is your opinion that it was criminal. They are only actions. Until he is found guilty they not crimes he committed.

1000+ DOJ prosecutors disagree with you bringing us back to something I said two days ago - who to believe, 1000 DOJ prosecutors or Some Dude On The Internet?

 

[stevil]

So in other words, he didn't want to. He states reason why he didn't want to. He could have, but didn't. So he didn't want to.

His wants had nothing to do with it.
He was bound by DOJ guidelines and integrity, of which he clearly explains. Anyone that understands the idea of integrity, understands that this is not about personal wants.

We are in agreement that he didn't find that Trump committed a crime.

Not officially. He is not offering his opinion, and he is not making an official accusation.
He might have an opinion that Trump committed crimes, but even if he does have that opinion, he isn't letting the public know of it.

His statement of if we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime we would have said so, in a way of saying we didn't find he committed a crime. It's basically saying maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That's just a cop.out.

It's not a cope out at all. His remit was never to find and accuse the sitting president of a crime.

But couple the above with
" if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
and even just a basic grasp of comprehension and logic would tell us that the only options open are:
a) President Trump has committed a crime (in the opinion of the Special Council)
b) The special council are unsure if President Trump committed a crime

They have ruled out option c) President Trump definitely did not commit a crime.
and ruled out option d) The Special Council has insufficient evidence to press charges against President Trump.


Now, knowing that the Special Council have on their team experts in US law, option b) is unlikely.

 

[stevil]

This is why mueller needs to testify under oath, as barr did.

I am quite certain, prosecuters incur a lot of investigations, where they cant say a person they investigated did not committ an offense, but they also don't have the evidence to indict.

That's what they did with the Conspiracy aspect of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians to illegally interfere with the US elections.

They stated that they don't have enough evidence to determine that those in the Trump campaign committed a conspiracy crime.

“the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official.”
“But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns"

 

[stevil]

Thanks, I was trying to find something, but couldn't. As I said it was pretty obvious that people from Russia were involved in wrong doing during the election.

Trump denies that Russia did any wrong doing during the election.

Given his stance on this, he does not consider that Russian should be punished for this, he also does not consider that there is a national security issue regarding Russians interfering in future elections.
In fact, he instructed Flynn to remove the Sanctions Obama put on Russia for election interference.

Is this of any concern to you?

 

[bhsmte]

That's what they did with the Conspiracy aspect of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians to illegally interfere with the US elections.

They stated that they don't have enough evidence to determine that those in the Trump campaign committed a conspiracy crime.

“the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official.”
“But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns"

Your comments, have no bearing on why mueller would not testify under oath.

 

[stevil]

Your comments, have no bearing on why mueller would not testify under oath.

I have no problem with Mueller testifying under oath.

 

[rjs330]

Thanks for your clarification. I was just responding to the verbiage you used and in the context that you used it.



1000+ DOJ prosecutors disagree with you bringing us back to something I said two days ago - who to believe, 1000 DOJ prosecutors or Some Dude On The Internet?

And how many didn't sign it?

 

[rjs330]

That's what they did with the Conspiracy aspect of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians to illegally interfere with the US elections.

They stated that they don't have enough evidence to determine that those in the Trump campaign committed a conspiracy crime.

“the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official.”
“But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns"

So we are still at what I said. The evidence doesn't show he committed a crime. Maybe he did maybe he didn't. We don't know. Mueller chose not to say that he did.

 

[USincognito]

And how many didn't sign it?

 

[stevil]

The evidence doesn't show he committed a crime.

Many people that are experts in US law have stated that the evidence as presented in the SC report does show that the President committed a crime.

Maybe he did maybe he didn't. We don't know.

You and I are not experts in US law, we don't know definitively whether a crime was committed or not, although we do have the capability to read what is written in the SC report. Some of us might think it is totally fine, some of us may have serious concerns, and some might be undecided.

Mueller chose not to say that he did.

Yes, that is correct and we don't need Mueller to tell us whether it was a crime or not. Many people are qualified to assess the legal situation, this is not the sole domain of Mueller.

The process going forward is for Congress to decide. One would hope they take it seriously and consult qualified legal advice on this matter, and then approach this from an oversight obligation responsibility rather than making a political show of it. On this matter, both Democrat and Republican house members should be united. We must remember, even if Trump is removed from office the Republicans will still own the Presidency.