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

[stevil]

Next steps are in the hands of the dem run house. What do you think they will do?

What I think is beside the point. I'm no expert in law or US congressional process.

I am merely an observer like you are.
I am interested though in how well the US system's check's and balances operate when you have a rogue president, committing crimes, being supported by his chosen team and replacing those that aren't providing 100% loyalty. Also handpicking Supreme Court justices when available.

This might be the situation which is happening today, I'm not sure. But it is interesting to watch, how one side (as well as the independent intelligence and justice agencies) are trying to investigate and deal out consequences on a president who is obstructing, refusing to comply, and wagering a massive series of propaganda activities via social media and a couple of ultra friendly popular media channels.

It's fascinating to watch. But so far, I am liking the political system and checks and balances we have in my country. Our party in power can simply replace their own leader i.e. change who the Prime Minister is. Which is no big deal because people vote for a party and set of policies rather than a specific person as a leader.
But then again, we haven't been tested to the degree of what is happening in USA right now.
Ordinarily I would have though a person would resign in the best interests of the future of their party. But with Trump, he has never really been a member of the Republican party other than being leader (President). I don't think Trump would care about the ongoing reputation of the party. Once he is no longer President, he will leave the party. He certainly would not want to do any public service other than the one that gives him all the power.

 

[Allandavid]

What is required is for a group of similarly principled Republicans as came forward during the Watergate investigations, to stand up for the Constitution.

Am I being overly optimistic...?

 

[Pommer]

What
Once he is no longer President, he will leave the party. He certainly would not want to do any public service other than the one that gives him all the power.

Oh, no, they’ll have him do rallies and fundraisers, he’s a showman, and an earner, (oh he will take his cut!), and only work when he wants...so maybe you are correct?

 

[Pommer]

What is required is for a group of similarly principled Republicans as came forward during the Watergate investigations, to stand up for the Constitution.

Am I being overly optimistic...?

Nixon did have enemies, (sure, he was paranoid but), Several Southern Senators (newly Republican and not used to defending the “Yankee Party”) as well as Democrat Senator Sam Ervin (NC) whose Watergate hearings brought down the Quaker.

 

[NotreDame]

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.

Why are you obsessed with the fact Mueller did not explicitly allege Trump committed the crime of obstruction/attempted obstruction? Have you actually persuaded yourself to think Mueller expressing an opinion necessarily means the opinion he has expressed is right? Do you not realize and understand that Mueller alleging a crime is an opinion? That Mueller would be engaged in making and expressing an opinion, like EVERYONE else? Welcome to humanity Mueller, you have an opinion like the rest of us, and for a moment it was rumored you might be a deity, given the amount of deference RJ is giving to you.

Do you have a guess as to what would be needed to evaluate the strength of Mueller’s opinion, should he had expressed one of guilt? Any notion as to what would be desirable to assess the veracity of Mueller’s opinion of guilt.

Evidence!

The evidence allows one to know, without Mueller’s opinion of guilt. A defining feature of evidence is to facilitate in the discovery of knowledge, and to reveal knowledge. Who knew?

Einstein was of the opinion that gravity warps space fabric, thereby bending light and warping time. How exactly did anyone come to know Einstein was right? Evidence. The closer one gets to the center of an object warping space fabric, the more slowly time moves. How is this known to be true? Evidence.

You do realize 12 jurors voting for guilt are expressing their opinion the evidence supports guilt? Guess what determines whether their opinion is strong and true to some very high degree of probability? Evidence.

The evidence here, and it’s strenth and weaknesses, along with the rational inferences made from the evidence, and the strength of logical arguments made based on and relying upon the evidence, allows one to “know” whether Trump committed a crime to varying degrees of confidence.

Your entire argument ignores the concept of evidence, and labors under the false pretense that knowing isn’t possible without some official declaration by some official or jury.

 

[Kentonio]

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

When did Mueller refuse to testify under oath?

 

[KCfromNC]

No problem. Your ability to selectively interpret, speaks for itself.

I guess trying to make this about me rather than answering a simple question is one possible approach. But it is weird you can't seem to, or don't want to, explain why your posts continue to be so obsessed with why one individual didn't do something at work that his boss wouldn't allow.

 

[KCfromNC]

“The argyle defense”?

If the his belt is brown, Donald won't let us down!

 

[KCfromNC]

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

With zero explanation of why that single question is more important than discussions about the scores of pages of evidence of criminal activity by a sitting president. And while ignoring the actual documented reasons that person did what he did.

Reads like a weak attempt at character assassination against the investigator to me.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have no problem with Mueller testifying under oath.

I don't, but it does seem weird that he'd need to. Can anyone identify something in what he wrote that needs to be clarified? The large amount of evidence that Donald obstructed justice during the investigation it all seems fairly well documented as-is.

From what I can see, the calls for Mueller to testify are coming from posts which are also trying to sell the "there's something fishy about a man not doing something he wasn't allowed to do but I can't explain exactly what" narrative. Seems like a way to turn the investigation into being about Mueller personally rather than the well-documented instances of Donald obstructing the investigation.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you have a guess as to what would be needed to evaluate the strength of Mueller’s opinion, should he had expressed one of guilt? Any notion as to what would be desirable to assess the veracity of Mueller’s opinion of guilt.

Evidence!

As you may have noted, there's a concerted bit of messaging to try and turn this discussion away from the evidence contained in the Mueller report and towards implied vague doubts about Mueller himself. I don't know why anyone would fall for that - it seems that having to do so would basically be an admission that the actual evidence is strong. But that seems to be the approach that some groups of posts really want to focus on. Telling?

 

[whatbogsends]

I don't, but it does seem weird that he'd need to. Can anyone identify something in what he wrote that needs to be clarified? The large amount of evidence that Donald obstructed justice during the investigation it all seems fairly well documented as-is.

From what I can see, the calls for Mueller to testify are coming from posts which are also trying to sell the "there's something fishy about a man not doing something he wasn't allowed to do but I can't explain exactly what" narrative. Seems like a way to turn the investigation into being about Mueller personally rather than the well-documented instances of Donald obstructing the investigation.

I think Mueller needs to testify under oath to clarify what he said to Barr, as Barr's responses under oath indicate that Mueller didn't have a problem with Barr's summary, which seems to contradict Mueller's letter to Barr.

I also think he should give his opinion as to whether the evidence compiled constitutes a crime, although I think that question is less consequential.

 

[rjs330]

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?

Yes it does. Haven't we proven Russians we're involv d? Weren't some prosecuted for it? Russia had been involved in messing in our elections for years. It seems like this is the first time anything was really done about it.

So I don't want foreign entities messing in our elections and I don't like it that the president doesn't castigate them for it.

 

[Albion]

Why are you obsessed with the fact Mueller did not explicitly allege Trump committed the crime of obstruction/attempted obstruction? Have you actually persuaded yourself to think Mueller expressing an opinion necessarily means the opinion he has expressed is right? Do you not realize and understand that Mueller alleging a crime is an opinion? That Mueller would be engaged in making and expressing an opinion, like EVERYONE else? Welcome to humanity Mueller, you have an opinion like the rest of us, and for a moment it was rumored you might be a deity, given the amount of deference RJ is giving to you.

The question might be asked: was that what Mueller was hired to do--spout hunches or make extraneous comments? Or was he supposed to find out and report if there was collusion? He couldn't find any. That's it, so far as this action of Congress is concerned.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess trying to make this about me rather than answering a simple question is one possible approach. But it is weird you can't seem to, or don't want to, explain why your posts continue to be so obsessed with why one individual didn't do something at work that his boss wouldn't allow.

I call them as i see them and as i said, how you choose to selectively interpret my posts, is clearly driven by a predetermined, personal bias.

Hey, it is what it is.

 

[bhsmte]

I think Mueller needs to testify under oath to clarify what he said to Barr, as Barr's responses under oath indicate that Mueller didn't have a problem with Barr's summary, which seems to contradict Mueller's letter to Barr.

I also think he should give his opinion as to whether the evidence compiled constitutes a crime, although I think that question is less consequential.

IMO, this is the most important next steps.

Someone is lying here. It is either barr (who claims to have witnesses for his discussion with mueller) or it is mueller, changing his position, since communicating with barr. I think the american public, who paid for the investigation, are entitled to that.

Lastly, it is entrenched in american justice, that those who investigate and collect evidence of possible crimes, be cross examined on their work.

 

[rjs330]

So apparently we only trust the ones that did..

 

[rjs330]

Did

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.


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.


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.

Did you believe those same experts when they said Hillary committed crimes? Or is it only because it's Trump? Or do you believe the experts on both counts? Maybe you don't believe the experts in either case. Which is it?

 

[NotreDame]

The question might be asked: was that what Mueller was hired to do--spout hunches or make extraneous comments? Or was he supposed to find out and report if there was collusion? He couldn't find any. That's it, so far as this action of Congress is concerned.

That's edifying but my post, to which you responded, was not focusing upon "collusion" or a lack of "collusion." Indeed, my post has absolutely nothing to do with the segment of the Report devoted to investigating Russian interference in the U.S. election or whether the Trump campaign, and any of its members, conspired with Russian to interfere with the U.S. election.

 

[rjs330]

What is required is for a group of similarly principled Republicans as came forward during the Watergate investigations, to stand up for the Constitution.

Am I being overly optimistic...?

I would like both parties to stand up for the Constitution. I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to in this case. What part of the Constitution aren't the Republicans standing up for?