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

[bhsmte]

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

Clearly, you havent paid attention.

 

[whatbogsends]

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?

There is an entire volume of the Mueller Report which presents evidence of obstruction. Saying "no evidence was turned up" is either ignorance, delusion, or deception.

 

[NotreDame]

...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.

The DOJ has the inherent authority to conduct investigations and pursuant to that authority, appointed a special counsel in accordance to DOJ guidelines. Congressional approval is not necessary.

Attempts to obstruct special counsel’s investigation is logically and rationally related to the very investigation itself, thereby justifying an investigation into those actions attempting to obstruct or obstructing the investigation. After all, it is illogical to think special counsel may investigate X but any conduct attempting to impede, interfere, obstruct, or hinder the investigation of X is not to be investigated. Said conduct is directly related to the investigation of the subject matter X and it makes no sense to think special counsel is engaged in “fishing expedition” when investigating attempts to keep him/her from conducting an investigation of X.

Rosentein’s memo appointing special counsel and defining the scope of the investigation is sufficient broad enough to include investigation of attempts to obstruct or obstruction of special counsel’s investigation.

The allegation of a “fishing expedition” is meritless.

Yet, whether the obstruction investigation was a “fishing expedition” is crying over spilled milk. The investigation of obstruction was done. There is evidence to support obstruction/attempted obstruction. A “fishing expedition” doesn’t erase he existence of evidence incriminating Trump of obstruction/attempted obstruction.

 

[NotreDame]

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

Mueller, in a televised address, stated explicitly the reasons for declining to make a prosecutorial decision. He listed the DOJ guideline a sitting president cannot be indicted criminally, notions of fairness of alleging a crime when the accused, Trump, cannot immediately avail himself of being vindicated as not guilty by a jury since he cannot be indicted, thereby hanging a dark cloud over the President, and so forth.

Mueller never said a lack of evidence is why he didn’t make a prosecutorial judgment. To the contrary, he essentially stated there IS evidence of obstruction as Mueller said if he felt the evidence exonerated Trump, then he would have said so!

 

[rjs330]

Was Nixon innocent?

Trump is not Nixon. Do you not believe in our just systems presumption of innocence?

 

[rjs330]

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?

It's evidence of possible obstruction. It is not evidence of obstruction until he is found guilty of it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Until the specific case of obstruction is investigated and charges are filed it's only alleged by people on the internet and talking heads. And their opinions are irrelevant.

 

[rjs330]

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?"

So you believe Clinton committed a crime.

 

[Pommer]

Trump is not Nixon. Do you not believe in our just systems presumption of innocence?

Nice dodge.

 

[Allandavid]

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.

True, but in Trump’s case, he violates with impeachable offences almost daily....so much so, that people hardly register with each incident...

I heard an interesting analogy today to illustrate...

Imagine John Kennedy, during the Cuban missile crisis, had indicated to Castro that he would never permit his CIA to use assets within Castro’s family to provide intelligence. Kennedy would have been impeached and thrown out of office before the end of the week...

And yet, Trump did almost the same thing with his comments yesterday about Kim Jong Un’s brother...

The response...? Meh.........

 

[NotreDame]

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.

Now you’re catching on, as evinced by your remark that “just because you believe he did, doesn’t mean he did.” I couldn’t concur more! I’ve been stating, nearly ad nauseum, that someone looking at the evidence, analyzing the evidence in a legal framework, and making a strong, sound argument of how and why the evidence demonstrates a crime was committed, isn’t mere opinion, or just a belief, but is instead a belief and an opinion supported by evidence! My mere belief Trump committed a crime doesn’t mean Trump did, but the evidence does show, to a very strong degree of confidence, Trump committed a crime.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along to you. You’ve ignored the evidence. Mueller’s report has very strong evidence of obstruction/attempted obstruction in regards to two specific areas of focus by the special counsel. To assist in easily following along, I linked to a Twitter account who breaks down the evidence for each piece of conduct focused upon by the special counsel.

I’ve formulated my belief BASED on the evidence. It’s rather compelling.

You’ve done everything but address the evidence, its strengths, its weaknesses, which plagues your view.

By your logic, people apparently shouldn’t or can’t reach a conclusion a suspect committed murder, and is presumed innocent, despite being found in possession of the murder weapon, his DNA and prints on the murder weapon, victim’s blood on the murder weapon, defendant’s skin under nails of the victim, victim having scratch marks on his skin, victim witnessed with victim near the time of the murder, and a confession by the defendant he killed the woman. By your logic, it’s just everyone’s opinion the suspect murdered the victim. That’s crazy!

Your position takes this weird view that for some inexplicable reason, nobody can with any degree of rational confidence look at the evidence and conclude a crime was committed. That’s not a logical perspective. Of course it is possible, and plausible, for people to be able to examine the evidence and based on the strength of the evidence, reach a conclusion a crime was committed with some confident degree of certainty.

 

[stevil]

So you believe Clinton committed a crime.

I haven't pored over this case.

I really haven't found it that interesting whether a person used the official email system or used their own private email server. I understand that this ought to be against policy, and generally when it comes to Government concerns, being against policy could be against the law.

It wouldn't surprise me, if what she did was against the law.

But as I've already stated. Not all law breakers get a criminal record and/or jail time.
Breaking the speed limit does not generally land someone into jail nor give them a criminal record.

As I understand it, Ivanka Trump also had confidential emails sent through her personal email system.
I'm not up in arms about that. There was no malicious intent, no corrupt intent. Just poor judgement.

 

[stevil]

Trump is INNOCENT until proven guilty. That is our justice system.

I take the "innocent until proven guilty" to be with regards to the treatment of a person.
Treat them as if they are innocent. e.g. Don't bump their head when putting them into the police car, don't ruff them up a bit.

Basically, don't do the things that Candidate Trump was espousing on his campaign trail.
AND certainly don't call someone "crooked" in front of their name, and don't chant "lock her up", or "lock him up", especially if you are President or Attorney General or National Security Advisor, or a fan that goes to the Trump Extravagansa shows that he puts on, and then turns around on internet chat sites and tells people that Trump is innocent until proven guilty.

Trump's actual "innocence" or "guilt" is already in place. He either committed a crime or he didn't.
This isn't a Schrodenger's cat type scenario. Trump doesn't become guilty only once the judge finds him guilty. If you were to go down this route then we could complain about a Judge calling an innocent person guilty. Yeah, but he was innocent at the time you found him guilty.
This is non-sense.

The guy is either guilty or innocent, and the investigators and the legal system is working to find out, to discover, his guilt or innocence, rather than to create his guilt.

 

[rjs330]

Nice dodge.

Trump is not Nixon. Nixon too was innocent until proven guilty according to the law. Nixon was pardoned before any charges. Trump is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

As I said, he may very well be guilty of obstruction. But, he may not be. Did Trump commit a crime? We don't really know yet.

 

[rjs330]

Now you’re catching on, as evinced by your remark that “just because you believe he did, doesn’t mean he did.” I couldn’t concur more! I’ve been stating, nearly ad nauseum, that someone looking at the evidence, analyzing the evidence in a legal framework, and making a strong, sound argument of how and why the evidence demonstrates a crime was committed, isn’t mere opinion, or just a belief, but is instead a belief and an opinion supported by evidence! My mere belief Trump committed a crime doesn’t mean Trump did, but the evidence does show, to a very strong degree of confidence, Trump committed a crime.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along to you. You’ve ignored the evidence. Mueller’s report has very strong evidence of obstruction/attempted obstruction in regards to two specific areas of focus by the special counsel. To assist in easily following along, I linked to a Twitter account who breaks down the evidence for each piece of conduct focused upon by the special counsel.

I’ve formulated my belief BASED on the evidence. It’s rather compelling.

You’ve done everything but address the evidence, its strengths, its weaknesses, which plagues your view.

By your logic, people apparently shouldn’t or can’t reach a conclusion a suspect committed murder, and is presumed innocent, despite being found in possession of the murder weapon, his DNA and prints on the murder weapon, victim’s blood on the murder weapon, defendant’s skin under nails of the victim, victim having scratch marks on his skin, victim witnessed with victim near the time of the murder, and a confession by the defendant he killed the woman. By your logic, it’s just everyone’s opinion the suspect murdered the victim. That’s crazy!

Your position takes this weird view that for some inexplicable reason, nobody can with any degree of rational confidence look at the evidence and conclude a crime was committed. That’s not a logical perspective. Of course it is possible, and plausible, for people to be able to examine the evidence and based on the strength of the evidence, reach a conclusion a crime was committed with some confident degree of certainty.

You know I haven't said he did not commit a crime right? It's also plausable that people could look at the evidence and say I don't know if he did or didn't. I personally do not believe all the evidence is there or that it is all in.

 

[rjs330]

I take the "innocent until proven guilty" to be with regards to the treatment of a person.
Treat them as if they are innocent. e.g. Don't bump their head when putting them into the police car, don't ruff them up a bit.

Basically, don't do the things that Candidate Trump was espousing on his campaign trail.
AND certainly don't call someone "crooked" in front of their name, and don't chant "lock her up", or "lock him up", especially if you are President or Attorney General or National Security Advisor, or a fan that goes to the Trump Extravagansa shows that he puts on, and then turns around on internet chat sites and tells people that Trump is innocent until proven guilty.

Trump's actual "innocence" or "guilt" is already in place. He either committed a crime or he didn't.
This isn't a Schrodenger's cat type scenario. Trump doesn't become guilty only once the judge finds him guilty. If you were to go down this route then we could complain about a Judge calling an innocent person guilty. Yeah, but he was innocent at the time you found him guilty.
This is non-sense.

The guy is either guilty or innocent, and the investigators and the legal system is working to find out, to discover, his guilt or innocence, rather than to create his guilt.

And that's precisely what they should be doing. But what I hear a lot of people saying is "he committed a crime."
I've been in many courtrooms. You what they always tell the jury? The defendant is innocent. It is up to the prosecution to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. All we have is some evidence out there. We haven't heard examinations of all the players and there is much more to learn. It's not over yet. At least it doesn't appear to be. We'll see what Congress does.

 

[stevil]

But what I hear a lot of people saying is "he committed a crime."

Well, lots of people seem to want Mueller to declare if he thinks Trump committed a crime or not. Go figure.

The public are obviously keen to know if their president has committed crimes or not.
The media have a responsibility to serve the people, by not only reporting on facts, but also by bringing in qualified people to share their opinions. Napolitano isn't left wing, he isn't a democrat supporter, he isn't an anti-Trumper. But he is qualified in US law. It makes sense to broadcast his opinion (as an opinion), and I give great dues for Fox to be televising this.
But of course Napolitano's opinion isn't the law here.

Congress are in the unfortunate situation where they must decide to impeach (or not) a person (president) who hasn't been found guilty under the justice system, based on accusations of guilt of high crimes or misdameanors.
This is the system, it is obviously flawed.

It is forced into this situation because:
Your Justice Department guidelines on not charging a sitting president of a crime.
Trump would never resign, doesn't matter what allegation is on him. Many people in other situations resign or asked to resign given allegations against them.
In USA, you guys make a big deal of the President having been constitutionally voted into power. So you deem it as un-constitutional for his party or others to remove him from office.

But Congress and impeachment is the only process you have, of dealing with a criminal President that refuses to resign.


So, it might well be the case that the politicians consider Trump guilty, they accuse him, go through the impeachment process, remove him from office.
But then what happens if the out of Office Trump is charged with the crime, goes through the court system and is found innocent?
What then? He doesn't get his presidency back. Do the public then accuse the politicians of being politically motivated and putting on a show rather than being motivated by Congressional Oversight obligations????

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It's evidence of possible obstruction. It is not evidence of obstruction until he is found guilty of it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Until the specific case of obstruction is investigated and charges are filed it's only alleged by people on the internet and talking heads. And their opinions are irrelevant.

For what it's worth, I did consider changing my post to say essentially what you did not long after making it because I figured someone was going to nitpick it. In the end I didn't, because while you're technically right, that's putting a very fine point on things for the purposes of this discussion.

Within the bounds of the law, Trump is innocent of any crime because he has not been proven guilty in court. However, the case has not gone to court, so neither is he proven not guilty. And the court of public opinion is not bound by our legal code - we have a body of evidence available to us, and according to that evidence, he certainly appears to be guilty of obstruction. As private citizens, we are entitled to draw our own conclusions based on that evidence and share them in the public sphere, and that's what is happening in this thread. We're all aware that in a strictly legal sense, Trump is still innocent, so continuing to belabor that point just makes you look desperate.

 

[KCfromNC]

The question might be asked: was that what Mueller was hired to do

Luckily 2 seconds on google answers that question : https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Is Barr under investigation for perjury? If not, I don't see the point in having additional evidence that he's guilty of it.

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.

A huge number of federal prosecutors have already weighed in. Not sure what adding one more person to the mix will do, aside from give more ammo to the "witch hunt" propaganda coming out of the White House.

 

[DaisyDay]

I've been in many courtrooms. You what they always tell the jury? The defendant is innocent.

No, they don't. They, the judges, never tell the jury that the defendant is innocent; they say that he is presumed innocent at the start of the trial.