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

[rjs330]

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.

Evidence is only facts. Evidence in the justice system is often interpreted during the process. What does the evidence mean? Particularly when it comes to the actions of an individual or what they say. That's why we have a justice system. The evidence does not always determine a person's guilt or innocence. Evidence must be interpreted.

Trump is INNOCENT until proven guilty. That is our justice system. He may very well have committed crimes, bit just because you believe he did, doesn't mean he did.

 

[Pommer]

Trump is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

Was Nixon innocent?

 

[rambot]

Was Nixon innocent?

IS Nixon innocent?

 

[Lost4words]

"If we had confidence that Trump had committed a crime, we would have said so"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

"If we had confidence that Trump had committed a crime, we would have said so"

Says who?

 

[Allandavid]

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?

The part that requires a president to fulfil his oath of office and for Congress to oversee him in that regard. There were several Republicans of integrity who put their own careers on the line during Watergate because they felt compelled to call a corrupt president to account, even though he was one of their ‘own’.

I see only one, so far, in the current era...

 

[bhsmte]

The part that requires a president to fulfil his oath of office and for Congress to oversee him in that regard. There were several Republicans of integrity who put their own careers on the line during Watergate because they felt compelled to call a corrupt president to account, even though he was one of their ‘own’.

I see only one, so far, in the current era...

All true.

With that said, when clinton was impeached, they didnt convict in the senate. In fact, not one democrat voted to convict clinton, on either the perjury or obstruction charges.

IMO, trump likely obstructed, but with watergate, the evidence was over the top with nixon and on tape.

 

[Albion]

That's edifying but my post, to which you responded, was not focusing upon "collusion" or a lack of "collusion."

...which, however, was the express purpose of the Mueller investigation.

There having been none, the backup plan is to find something, anything, to take its place...and that is clearly to engage in a fishing expedition never approved by the Congress.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

...which, however, was the express purpose of the Mueller investigation.

There having been none, the backup plan is to find something, anything, to take its place...and that is clearly to engage in a fishing expedition never approved by the Congress.

I don't know what you're getting at here. It is within the purview of an investigation to look into efforts to obstruct the investigation.

 

[Albion]

I don't know what you're getting at here. It is within the purview of an investigation to look into efforts to obstruct the investigation.

But no evidence of that was turned up either! And yet Nadler et al are acting as though it was.

They might as well start investigating Senator Graham or Congressman Gaetz for obstruction since there is no evidence of them doing any obstructing. That's all it takes for the people who are still fighting the 2016 election campaign to subpoena anybody, isn't it?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But no evidence of that was turned up either!

Um, have you read Volume II of the Mueller Report? Literally all of it is evidence for obstruction of justice.

 

[bhsmte]

But no evidence of that was turned up either! And yet Nadler et al are acting as though it was.

They might as well start investigating Senator Graham or Congressman Gaetz for obstruction since there is no evidence of them doing any obstructing. That's all it takes for the people who are still fighting the 2016 election campaign to subpoena anybody, isn't it?

No evidence??????????????

 

[Albion]

Um, have you read Volume II of the Mueller Report? Literally all of it is evidence for obstruction of justice.

If so, Mueller would not have concluded that he couldn't charge the president with obstruction.

 

[Arcangl86]

If so, Mueller would not have concluded that he couldn't charge the president with obstruction.

He didn't conclude that he couldn't charge the president based on DoJ policies, not the strength of the evidence.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If so, Mueller would not have concluded that he couldn't charge the president with obstruction.

1. What leads you to that conclusion? Mueller has stated his reasoning for not charging the President, and lack of evidence doesn't figure into it.

2. If it isn't evidence of obstruction, what is it?

 

[Albion]

1. What leads you to that conclusion? Mueller has stated his reasoning for not charging the President, and lack of evidence doesn't figure into it.

It certainly does. You appear to have concluded that he has the goods on Trump but lied by saying he does not. Further, he then simply chooses not to pursue it or even properly inform the Congress of his findings. Really?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It certainly does. You are apparently saying that he has the goods on Trump but lied by saying he does not.

He did not say that he doesn't have the goods on Trump. He said that DOJ policy prevents him from presenting charges against the President.

Further, he then simply chooses not to pursue it or even properly inform the Congress of his findings. Really?

He was bound by DOJ policy to not pursue charges - it wasn't a "choice". And what else is the report besides informing Congress of his findings?

I ask again, have you read the Mueller Report? It lays out all of the evidence that Mueller found very clearly.

 

[stevil]

Did

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?

Why are you going back to Hilary? This is deflection again.
I believe it is a crime to put classified email/documents onto a private server. Yes.
I also think it is a crime to drive faster than the speed limit.
I wouldn't classify a person driving too fast as a criminal. I wouldn't be chanting to lock them up.

Can you please address my points rather than chanting "what about Hillary?"

 

[stevil]

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?

Personally, I'd like him to testify about his discussions with Barr, pre Barr's congressional testimony. If he can show that Barr lied then Barr ought to be charged on that.

 

[stevil]

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.

Totally agree

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.

This is unneccessary. Mueller is just one of many, many, many people qualified to assess the evidence against US law.
Mueller will state that he deems it unfair to accuse someone of a crime if they don't have the means of going through a trial.

Now, if Trump is removed from office, then I am sure Mueller will offer his professional opinion.
But many people can offer a qualified legal opinion. What is special about Mueller?