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

rjs330 said:

Umm... The FBI stated she committed crimes. They have not said the same thing about Trump.

Click to expand...

First, it wasn't actually the FBI that was responsible for investigation Trump in this matter -- so they wouldn't have said anything. Now, when you talk about the FBI and the Special Councils office, it is not true, they said the exact same things about Hillary as they did about Trump campaigners trying to coordinate with the Russians -- that actions taken would have broken the law but intent cannot be proven, therefore the assumption is they did not break the law (no crime committed).

Beyond that, the FBI does not prosecute, and even had they charged her with a crime (which they did not) then she would still be -- as you point out above -- presumed innocent. Comey actually went to great lengths to say that Hillary did not commit a crime. By contrast, the Special Counsel has taken great pains to not say Trump is innocent, instead they state that he may have committed crimes and fully lays out the evidence, including intent, as to how Trump did commit crimes -- but they will not accuse him of committing crimes since they cannot prosecute him for those crimes.

What makes your argument even weaker is, again, Trump cannot be charged with a crime (per DoJ policy) but Hillary can. More to the point, Comey is long gone and first Sessions and now Barr -- two men whose offices would bring charges -- have failed to indict Hillary. The fact that Hillary has not been charged says much more than the fact Trump has not been.

rjs330 said:

I don't know why you are arguing with me on this. It appears that you and I agree on the presumption of innocence. The jury is told that they have to presume the defendant in innocent until the case and evidence is presented. And the evidence has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the crime.

Click to expand...

We're arguing because you keep insisting that Donald is innocent whether or not he actually did what he has been accused of. That simply isn't true - he is innocent if he didn't do it and guilty if he did do it. His actual guilt or innocence has nothing to do with a jury.

Here's the problem you ...

Click to expand...

Oh goody. Do tell me the problem with me.

...and most of the leftiats on this forum have.. You have determined that Trump is guilty of something when you don't have all the facts.

Click to expand...

How can anyone ever know when they have "all" the facts and that there are no more facts to be known? That's not a reasonable standard. What we do is look at all the facts we do have and come to a conclusion based on what we do know. Quite often, we don't know enough to come to any definite conclusions; in this particular case, however, we know quite a bit based on a report exhaustively researched and documented.

It's the old court of public opinion thing.

Click to expand...

Which is what this is. This is not an actual courtroom where the life and liberty of Donald hangs in the balance.

Your opinion is worthless where it comes to the actual guilt or innocence of Trump. You can run around all day and say he's guilty, but it doesn't matter until some actually brings a charge against him.

Click to expand...

A charge against him, even a conviction or exoneration, doesn't affect his actual guilt or innocence - he either did it or did not.

We are talking about legal standards.

Click to expand...

No, you are talking about legal standards. This is a forum, not a court.

In legal standing Trump is presumed innocent. In the your personal court of opinion you may believe he's guilty. But that doesn't mean he is. Some may believe he's innocent. But that doesn't mean he is. Your opinion has a very large bias and Im very skeptical of it and the other haters just because of the bias. I don't think you could be objective at all in this case.

Click to expand...

You really don't know what my bias is - you are assuming it. Be careful who you accuse of being a "hater" - that's inflammatory.

rjs330 said:

When someone claims he committed a crime I believe it infers that he is guilty. Does it not?

Click to expand...

If I claim that my neighbor stole my mail, that does not mean that he is guilty of stealing my mail - even if I have security cam footage of him taking letters out of my mailbox. If I claim that Trump obstructed justice, it simply means that I believe he did based on the evidence I have. My opinions carry no legal weight as I am not a prosecutor or judge and am not serving on a jury at the moment.

rjs330 said:

In other words they have nothing. They didn't find admissible evidence. That sounds an awedul lot like they didn't find evidence that would support a charge. Thus, they found nothing to show there was collaberation. They also couldn't prove there was collaberation because they couldn't show value. Bottom line is they didn't find that that they did anything wrong!

That's the whole point!

Click to expand...

No, you're characterization is still wrong. They didn't find definitive evidence that they knowingly and intentionally committed crimes. They did, however, work with the Russians, despite your assertions to the contrary. Their work with the Russians wasn't provable at the level of criminal conspiracy.

In regards to obstruction of justice, on the other hand, the report contains substantial evidence of that crime. Plenty to charge Trump on, but DOJ rules are preventing that from happening.

The claim "Bottom line is they didn't find that that they did anything wrong! " is an absolute falsehood.

rjs330 said:

Umm... The FBI stated she committed crimes. They have not said the same thing about Trump.

Click to expand...

1000 former federal prosecutors said Trump has committed crimes.

The Mueller Report also said that the Trump Tower meeting was illegal, but unable to be prosecuted because of provable intent (much like Clinton's crimes couldn't be prosecuted because of provable intent).

Your double standard is blatant.

SimplyMe said:

That's odd... I quoted in the post above where you had stated, "To be consistent I never said Clinton was guilty. I said she committed crimes."

So which is it, where you bearing false witness then (when you stated you believed that Clinton had committed crimes but made it sound as if you didn't think she was guilty) or are you being dishonest now -- when you say committing a crime is saying they are guilty?

Click to expand...

The FBI said she committed crimes. I'm just going off what they said. No one has said Trump has committed a crime. I've also said Clinton was innocent until.proven guilty. When I say Clinton. Committed a crime I am just stating what the FBI said. I would love to have you guys to be consistent. The FBI said Clinton committed a crime, but didn't turn it in for prosecution. You guys believe Trump committed a crime, but no one has actually said so.

rjs330 said:

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

As I said, he may very well be guilty of obstruction. But, he may not be. My question stands. Do you not believe in the right of the presumption of innocence?

Click to expand...

That’s a right under the law, meaning the government cannot declare you guilty until it is proven. However, there is no right to a presumption of innocence by the public. People have a right to have an opinion on another person’s guilt, and outside of libel and slander laws, they can freely express those opinions.

rjs330 said:

The FBI said she committed crimes. I'm just going off what they said. No one has said Trump has committed a crime. I've also said Clinton was innocent until.proven guilty. When I say Clinton. Committed a crime I am just stating what the FBI said. I would love to have you guys to be consistent. The FBI said Clinton committed a crime, but didn't turn it in for prosecution. You guys believe Trump committed a crime, but no one has actually said so.

Click to expand...

The FBI did not say she committed a crime.

rjs330 said:

The FBI said she committed crimes. I'm just going off what they said. No one has said Trump has committed a crime. I've also said Clinton was innocent until.proven guilty. When I say Clinton. Committed a crime I am just stating what the FBI said. I would love to have you guys to be consistent. The FBI said Clinton committed a crime, but didn't turn it in for prosecution. You guys believe Trump committed a crime, but no one has actually said so.

Click to expand...

I keep disputing this fact with you. Please provide the full quote where "the FBI" (or, likely, you mean Comey) stated she committed a crime. Please provide this quote or quit making a claim you can't support.

Again, the fact is that what Comey stated about Clinton's emails, and what the Special Counsel's Report stated about the Trump Tower meeting is remarkably similar -- in both cases "potential violations occurred" but, also, in both, there is missing evidence proving intent -- therefore, no crime (at least that can be prosecuted) was committed. Again, if you are claiming Clinton was guilty, based on Comey's statements, they to be consistent you must also admit that the Trump Campaign committed the crime of conspiracy. The only difference is in one case you choose to interpret what was said as "crime was committed" (despite the fact that was never stated) and in the other you choose to interpret it as "completely innocent" -- the only difference is your bias.

Last, again, if Clinton committed a crime, as you keep claiming, then why has she never been prosecuted? The fact is, if they are missing an element, such as intent, then she did not commit a crime. More to the point, you keep claiming people are wrong to claim Trump is "guilty" since he hasn't been found guilty by a trial -- or even to say he committed a crime since that implies guilt -- yet you say the same thing about Clinton despite the fact that no charges have ever been filed. That is a pure double standard.

RocksInMyHead said:

No one here is claiming guilt, simply the appearance of guilt. Just like people say that they think OJ did it - despite the fact that he was acquitted.

Click to expand...

I think folks are claiming guilt. With the evidence in the report, it is only natural people will digest it and reach conclusions of their own.

I personally think he likely committed obstruction and now it is in the houses hands, what they do with it.

rjs330 said:

People hate Trump so bad that they say he's guilty of a crime when he hasn't even been accused of one yet.

Why would you want to claim guilt of crime when there hasn't actually been a criminal investigation or accusation?

Click to expand...

Because you shouldn't claim someone is guilty. Your not the judge or jury.

Click to expand...

A point of clarification, myself, and others, are asserting Trump committed a crime, specifically the crime of obstruction and/or attempted obstruction. If you are treating them as the same, I do not believe they are, then I say the following.

Your response, once again, ignores the 1 trillion ton elephant in the room, which is the evidence in the Report that strongly, very strongly in some instances, substantiates the notion Trump committed a crime. Your view is oblivious to the notion that where evidence is available people can evaluate the evidence and, as unfathomable as it may seem to you, reach a conclusion with a high degree of certainty, where such level of certainty is warranted by the evidence, that someone committed a crime.

Let's use an example, one I used previously. The evidence against a person suspected of armed robbery is 1.) Victim was robbed by a white male pointing a gun in broad day light 2.) Suspect took her purse 3.) After taking victim's purse the suspect struck the victim on the forehead with the handle of the gun, causing a bleeding cut to the victim 4.) Suspect was found by police an hour later in possession of the victim's purse and all the victim's items in the purse 4.) suspect was in possession of a gun 5.) Gun in suspect's person had victim's DNA on it and the DNA was located on the handle of the gun 6.) Suspect's DNA was the ONLY other DNA on the gun 7.) Suspect matched description given by victim and 8.) Victim identified suspect as the robber and assailant immediately after suspect was apprehended.

Now, by your logic, apparently people should not conclude the suspect committed the crime, despite the strength of the evidence strongly showing a high probability the suspect committed the crime, because the suspect has not been tried and convicted by a judge or jury. Yet, you have not made any compelling argument as to why anyone should abstain from believing the suspect committed a crime when and where the facts support such a belief, despite the lack of a trial in which a jury or judge determined the suspect's guilt.

And in this case he hasn't even been accused of a crime

Click to expand...

So what? An accusation is just that, an accusation, and lends no weight to whether the person committed a crime. When formalities interfere with accusing someone of a crime, your point loses more of its efficacy, if that is possible since your retort was not very compelling anyone. Suppose for a moment in my hypothetical above that the statue of limitations precludes charges and prosecution, which means the suspect cannot be accused by authorities of committing a crime. Despite that formality of law enforcement not being able to accuse the suspect of committing armed robbery, the facts do not change, and those facts make a very compelling demonstration the suspect committed the crime. Trump not presently being accused of a crime, in this instance because of formalities, does not change the evidence against him in the Report.

Why would you want to claim guilt of crime when there hasn't actually been a criminal investigation or accusation

Click to expand...

To the contrary, there has been a criminal investigation. In addition, the evidence in the Report justifies the belief Trump committed the crime of obstruction/attempted obstruction. Where there is evidence to support and substantiate a belief, theory, or claim, then one is justified in so believing and claiming.

rjs330 said:

The FBI said she committed crimes. I'm just going off what they said. No one has said Trump has committed a crime. I've also said Clinton was innocent until.proven guilty. When I say Clinton. Committed a crime I am just stating what the FBI said. I would love to have you guys to be consistent. The FBI said Clinton committed a crime, but didn't turn it in for prosecution. You guys believe Trump committed a crime, but no one has actually said so.

Click to expand...

So what? Why does the FBI alleging Clinton committed crimes matter to this dialogue? Why does it matter "no one has actually said" Trump committed a crime?

bhsmte said:

I think folks are claiming guilt. With the evidence in the report, it is only natural people will digest it and reach conclusions of their own.

Click to expand...

The distinction I'm making is that, with regards to Trump, there aren't calls to "lock him up". There's still a desire to see the legal process through. Saying that you think someone is guilty isn't the same as proclaiming your beliefs law and declaring them guilty without a trial, which is what rjs seems to think.

SimplyMe said:

That's odd... I quoted in the post above where you had stated, "To be consistent I never said Clinton was guilty. I said she committed crimes."

So which is it, were you bearing false witness then (when you stated you believed that Clinton had committed crimes but made it sound as if you didn't think she was guilty) or are you being dishonest now -- when you say committing a crime is saying they are guilty?

Click to expand...

I think my own bias may be showing here. I feel that most of the liberals here believe Trump is guilty of committing crimes. So when they say he committed crimes I think they believe him guilty of such when no one has actually accused him of one. So, I apologise for making that assumption to those who do not feel that way.

NotreDame said:

So what? Why does the FBI alleging Clinton committed crimes matter to this dialogue? Why does it matter "no one has actually said" Trump committed a crime?

Click to expand...

You don't think it matters when others accuse someone of committing a crime when no one in the Justice system or an investigation has accused someone of crimes? I don't know, that seems a bit off to me.

Ive said a million times that you and others are entitled to an opinion. Believe if you want to that he committed a crime. But it seems very biased and ideologically driven when no one in the justice system has accused him of such.

whatbogsends said:

No, you're characterization is still wrong. They didn't find definitive evidence that they knowingly and intentionally committed crimes. They did, however, work with the Russians, despite your assertions to the contrary. Their work with the Russians wasn't provable at the level of criminal conspiracy.

In regards to obstruction of justice, on the other hand, the report contains substantial evidence of that crime. Plenty to charge Trump on, but DOJ rules are preventing that from happening.

The claim "Bottom line is they didn't find that that they did anything wrong! " is an absolute falsehood.

Click to expand...

So tell me, what exactly did they do wrong in the Russian case? What did Mueller say they did to collaberate with the Russians? I just used his quotes like you did. They didn't find anything they could use to say that Trump collaberated.

The only people that actually tried to influence the election and used Russian operatives was the Clinton campaign.

It appears that Mueller is not accurate in his report. He altered or edited things to make it look like there were things going in that weren't.

John Dowd: More evidence coming that shows Mueller report 'is a fraud'

rjs330 said:

It appears that Mueller is not accurate in his report. He altered or edited things to make it look like there were things going in that weren't.

John Dowd: More evidence coming that shows Mueller report 'is a fraud'

Click to expand...

The quote in question:

"Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I-'m-I'm sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't ... state it in ... starker terms," the message to Rob Kelner said. "If you have ... and it wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh ... I understand that you can't join the joint defense; so that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that ... implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So ... uh ... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of ... protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any ... confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but — Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal."

Click to expand...

I don't see how the "for the country" tacked on there changes the tenor of the message. This is Trump's personal lawyer, not a member of the government or law enforcement. Telling him about any incriminating evidence against the President does nothing to benefit the country.

rjs330 said:

So tell me, what exactly did they do wrong in the Russian case? What did Mueller say they did to collaberate with the Russians? I just used his quotes like you did. They didn't find anything they could use to say that Trump collaberated.

The only people that actually tried to influence the election and used Russian operatives was the Clinton campaign.

Click to expand...

This is not the full extent, but I already quoted in post #724 what they did wrong.

Here's some of the relevant info again:

"Robert Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr., to pass along from Emin and Aras Agalarov an "offer" from Russia's "Crown prosecutor" to "the Trump campaign" of "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr. 's] father." The email described this as "very high level and sensitive information" that is "part of Russia and its government's support to Mr. Trump-helped along by Aras and Emin." Trump Jr. responded: "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Trump Jr. and Emin Agalarov had follow-up conversations and, within days, scheduled a meeting with Russian representatives that was attended by Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner. The communications setting up the meeting and the attendance by high-level Campaign representatives support an inference that the Campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects.
...
Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide "official documents and information" to the Trump Campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials."

You keep making the false claim "they found nothing to show there was collaboration." That is a blatantly false claim. Not being able to prove criminal conspiracy due to lack of provable intent isn't in the same ballpark as "nothing to show there was collaboration". There is abundant evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That collaboration hasn't been proven to be manifested in specific criminal action, but if you don't think the above is "collaboration", I suggest you spend some time with a dictionary.

Now, please provide evidence for your claims of "The only people that actually tried to influence the election and used Russian operatives was the Clinton campaign". Be sure to apply a consistent standard for evidence when you present yours.

whatbogsends said:

This is not the full extent, but I already quoted in post #724 what they did wrong.

Here's some of the relevant info again:

"Robert Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr., to pass along from Emin and Aras Agalarov an "offer" from Russia's "Crown prosecutor" to "the Trump campaign" of "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr. 's] father." The email described this as "very high level and sensitive information" that is "part of Russia and its government's support to Mr. Trump-helped along by Aras and Emin." Trump Jr. responded: "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Trump Jr. and Emin Agalarov had follow-up conversations and, within days, scheduled a meeting with Russian representatives that was attended by Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner. The communications setting up the meeting and the attendance by high-level Campaign representatives support an inference that the Campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects.
...
Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide "official documents and information" to the Trump Campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials."

You keep making the false claim "they found nothing to show there was collaboration." That is a blatantly false claim. Not being able to prove criminal conspiracy due to lack of provable intent isn't in the same ballpark as "nothing to show there was collaboration". There is abundant evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That collaboration hasn't been proven to be manifested in specific criminal action, but if you don't think the above is "collaboration", I suggest you spend some time with a dictionary.

Now, please provide evidence for your claims of "The only people that actually tried to influence the election and used Russian operatives was the Clinton campaign". Be sure to apply a consistent standard for evidence when you present yours.

Click to expand...

Why the Infamous Trump Tower Meeting Didn't Take Down Trump

So this meeting was a big nothing. Nothing happened, nothing occurred, nothing was provided and nothing illegal occurred.