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

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,028
23,939
Baltimore
✟551,874.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So that's the standard now? We are now investigating people and coming up with we are not confident they did not commit a crime? That's what are justice system has devolved into? Well I'm not confident you did not commit a crime either.

This is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. If you think he committed a crime say so and present the evidence of such. You may not be able to charge him with it, but present the crime you think he committed and the evidence for it.

This is such a namby pamby open ended statement that has no place in our justice system. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Which means Trump is completely innocent if any crime until they prove him guilty.

Did you listen to Mueller's statement? Because it doesn't sound like you did. He said that since indicting a president was off table, it wasn't fair to claim that Trump did anything wrong since he wouldn't have a chance to defend himself in court. He basically said "we didn't exonerate Trump" and refused to go beyond that. If you don't like that, perhaps you'd prefer that Mueller made those accusations but Trump still had no chance to defend himself in court.

Or hey... here's an idea... maybe don't vote for someone so eager to obstruct justice and... Here's something novel - don't defend someone you voted for at any cost. Admitting your guy is a crook isn't the end of the world. I voted for our last mayor who just got raided by what I like to imagine was the same FBI crew who seized Manafort's ostrich jacket. But I can say "aw shucks, well, let's dump her and get somebody better." I don't know why you all have so much of your identities wrapped up in The Gilded Wonder.
 
Upvote 0

hopperace

long forgotten host
Oct 20, 2006
5,075
109
✟125,971.00
Faith
Presbyterian
That's an interesting spin, Tanj. Based in some fantastic misreading of what I posted, but interesting; particularly regarding the money trail and your seeming perspective that the whole continuing drama exists in a timeless vacuum without actual detriment to the American public.

"On" has no direct connection to your "by", especially as I spelled out the opposition Democrat impetus behind the whole affair, a known fact, regardless of the Republican pieces set in motion. One has only to look at the disparity of perspective regarding Mueller and Barr, who have been friends for 30 years, to admit to what's going on here.
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I liked this one...

Diner: "Excuse me, how's the salmon this evening?"

Waiter: "The Department of Justice has issued an opinion stating that I'm not legally allowed to say that the salmon is rancid. I'm just saying that if it *wasn't* rancid, I would have said so. But I'm not saying that."
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The Special Counsel was appointed on faulty and partisan propaganda of 'progressive' elements of the party which lost the previous election,

Ummmm.....excuse me...?

Who appointed the Special Counsel...?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It doesn't change anything, other than giving those he's loyal to more ammunition to carry on the hoax in the face of treason investigations they are facing. All this will do is galvanize their brainwashed followers, but it doesn't actually prove anything, other than perhaps he considers his own report a lie at some levels, and if so, he'll be going to jail too.
You can’t just make stuff up. There is no treason investigation, or talk of treason investigations by anyone who could call an investigation. There is zero evidence of Mueller being loyal to anyone. Zero.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
They found him to have committed no crime. They need to let it go.
I sometimes wonder if words mean the same things to all English speakers. :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
LOLOLOL, he's not my guy. I'm a life-long conservative Democrat. I'll admit I voted for him over "crooked Hilary" who should have already been locked up for worse crimes; but the choice wasn't based on Trump's character, nor the Republican party, who broke the Constitution to invade and pillage the South, killing over half a million Americans, nor the Democrat party's recent platform of killing over 47 million babies.
Wow.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
He contradicted his own report. He actually sounded scared, especially the way he ran off saying he wouldn't speak of it again. He looked like a scared little coward who was being threatened.
Deleted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Which means Trump is completely innocent if any crime until they prove him guilty.

You're confusing Hollywood with what trials actually find. The don't find people innocent.

And did you miss the numerous posts where the Special Counsel explains:
- they cannot charge a sitting president anyway
- the report leaves action of the president to be taken by Congress
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Go Braves
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You can’t just make stuff up. There is no treason investigation, or talk of treason investigations by anyone who could call an investigation. There is zero evidence of Mueller being loyal to anyone. Zero.

Other than the American people you mean.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. If you think he committed a crime say so and present the evidence of such. You may not be able to charge him with it, but present the crime you think he committed and the evidence for it.
I mean, he kind of did. See the section of the report detailing Obstruction of Justice. It presents many instances of obstruction by the President.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Which means Trump is completely innocent if any crime until they prove him guilty.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is only applicable to the court of law. In a perfectly ideal, perfectly fair society, perhaps people would leave their feelings at the door and the court of public opinion would mirror the court of law. However, we do not live in such a society, and people are free to make their own personal judgments of guilt and innocence. We saw it with Clinton (both of them), we saw it with OJ, and we see it now with Trump.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,456.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So Mueller said they have confidence he committed a crime?
It's all there. But unfortunately the audience needs to carefully read or listen, and must think long enough to apply basic logic.

READ: Robert Mueller's full remarks on the special counsel investigation - CNNPolitics
Question: Did the Special Council determine that the President committed a crime?
Answer:
"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision."

Question: Did the Special Council exonerate the President from any criminal wrongdoing?
Answer:
"if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that."

Question: Why did the Special Council not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime?
Answer:
"It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited."

"The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

"And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."

"From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President."

Question: was the Special Council investigation justified or was it a witch hunt?
Answer:
"The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office."

"That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."

"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American."

Question: Why bother investigating the President if you can't determine that he committed a crime?
Answer:
"First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged."

Question: Is the President above the law? Can they commit crimes without repercussion?
Answer:
"And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."


So Stevil's understanding of all of the above,
  • Special Council didn't directly accuse the President of committing a crime.
  • Special Council would have exonerated the President of committing a crime if they determined his innocence. They could not determine innocence, so they did not. But they aren't accusing him of a crime because that is a matter left for a process other than the criminal justice system a.k.a. congress and the impeachment process.
  • The Special Council are not recommending the impeachment process and are not going to make a recommendation for one and are not going to offer an opinion that the President carried out a crime even if the President did commit a crime.
  • The Special Council have investigated the President with regards to obstruction and have documented their findings as facts rather than as recommendations.
  • It is upto congress to determine if the president should be accused of committing a crime (they ought to consult legal advice given the findings documented in the Special Council report rather than ask Mueller to provide advice)
  • It is upto the public to offer support of congress to go down the path of impeachment. Will the public punish Congress at the polls if they don't do their duty of oversight, or will the public punish Congress if they do press the issue further towards impeachment?
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,118
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,713.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
|Guy 1: He's Innocent! Horray! He hasn't been charged with a crime. So he's clearly innocent! If he's innocent, that means there was no collusion!!!

Guy 2: Actually, he could never be charged. It would be impossible for him to be charged as a sitting presid......

Guy 1: HORRAY! Our man is innocent! It's so refereshing. Now if only Guy 2 would just stop denying reality.

Guy 2: Well, since a charge is impossible, the only possible outcomes of the report is either that of "Neutral" or "Innocent". And he was never said to be "innocent"

Guy 1: There were no charges! He was innocent. What don't you understand?

Guy who wrote report: We couldn't charge him. We could only say he was innocent. And we could only say that if we were confident in his innocence. So, since we didn't say it, we aren't convinced of it.

Guy 1:But there were no charges laid so there was no collusion.

Guy 2:
tmg-facebook_social.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Of all of the things that Mueller could have highlighted from that 400+ page report, what did he emphasise...?

1. The Russians directed a wide-ranging attack on the US electoral system, in favour of the Trump candidacy.
2. Even if they’d wanted to, the Mueller team could not bring charges against a sitting president.
3. They could not declare the president innocent of obstruction charges.
4. That it was up to ‘other bodies’ to pick up where Mueller left off.

His message couldn’t be clearer....
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,039
13,063
✟1,077,460.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
To me, Mueller's statement was basically a plea to Congress to finish his job. He did everything he could within the boundaries of the Constitution (as established by the current Attorney General, who has made a mockery of the Constitution since taking office) to warn America that there is a wolf in the White House devouring democracy along with his midnight cheeseburgers.

Democrats are left with no choice but to impeach. But as I understand it, if that happens, it will be impossible for "The defendant" to rip up subpoenas or prevent his conscience-stricken former employees from testifying.

I don't understand why Congressional Republicans are so loyal to Trump. If they excised this cancer from their midst, Pence would be president. Pence is at least as conservative as Trump. He is the evangelicals darling.

True, if he ran for president in 2020, he would be a lightning rod for feminists, who would oppose him in droves, but they feel that way about Trump, too.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't understand why Congressional Republicans are so loyal to Trump.

They're afraid of losing votes from his fan club. I mean, it is already hard enough to get poor people to turn out to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Imagine how much harder it would be to motivate those voters if they get rid of the guy telling them that at least brown people are going to suffer.
 
Upvote 0