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

[bhsmte]

This discussion isn't about whether any formal accusations of Obstruction have already been made.

It's about people discussing the SC report, discussing the evidence presented, discussing the SC position, discussing what the next steps are, if there are to be next steps...

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

 

[Pommer]

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

They’re doing it now...the Judicial Committee hearings, C-SPAN 3...now C-SPAN 1

 

[rambot]

You tell me what instructions were given to Starr. And the policy has been in effect since 1973.

.

1) Some people have pointed out that they were acting in different roles 2)I suppose my question was in response to "youvegottobekidding" because I personally don't know what instructions were given to Starr. I assume that the person making the claim is informed enough to be able to provide those instructions.

Meuller also did not accuse Trump of committing a crime

I asked a very simple question. You've been arguing YOUR point through 550 posts. Now you get to address that question:

Mueller WAS permitted, through instruction AND policy to vindicate Trump yet he did not: WHY?

 

[rjs330]

This discussion isn't about whether any formal accusations of Obstruction have already been made.

It's about people discussing the SC report, discussing the evidence presented, discussing the SC position, discussing what the next steps are, if there are to be next steps...

Then I guess people shouldn't be trying to debate me. We are all in agreement.

 

[rjs330]

They’re doing it now...the Judicial Committee hearings, C-SPAN 3...now C-SPAN 1

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

[rjs330]

1) Some people have pointed out that they were acting in different roles 2)I suppose my question was in response to "youvegottobekidding" because I personally don't know what instructions were given to Starr. I assume that the person making the claim is informed enough to be able to provide those instructions.


I asked a very simple question. You've been arguing YOUR point through 550 posts. Now you get to address that question:

Mueller WAS permitted, through instruction AND policy to vindicate Trump yet he did not: WHY?

Because he didn't want to. Since he was also allowed to state he believed Trump committed an offense. He didn't do that either because he didn't want to. So all in all he left it up to someone else. The Mueller report didn't exonorate Trump of any crime AND it didn't accuse him of any crime. It did clear him of any Russian wrong doing. But other than that, that's all it really did. It may have listed some things that he thought might need to be looked into, but he fell short of saying those things constituted an offense.

So we are back to agreement. No one has accused Trump of committing an offense.

 

[rambot]

Because he didn't want to.

Pause. Expand on this in a meaningful way: How do you know that? What evidence do you have that he didn't "want to". Why do you think that Mueller's desires are affecting is judgment?


In his press conference he pretty clearly said that "if we had confidence Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said that". In that sense you're right I guess: He did want to say Trump didn't commit a crime but he must not have had confidence that Trump didn't. Otherwise, he would have said that.


You using the word "want" makes it sound like it was some kind of "capricious" choice by a bureaucrat. It was not. I mean it's really easy to say they don't "want to". But then consider the reasons why they don't "want to". It's not just random or some kinda democrat plot.

626 posts in and we go full circle. Mueller said what he wanted: That if he didn't have confidence Trump committed a crime, he would have shared those findings.

 

[SimplyMe]

.

 

[stevil]

Then I guess people shouldn't be trying to debate me. We are all in agreement.

No one is debating you on the point that Mueller didn't accuse Trump of a crime.

And no one is debating you on the point that the House haven't started impeachment proceedings on the grounds that the sitting President has committed high crimes or misdemeanours.

Do you have anything more to add?

 

[stevil]

Since he was also allowed to state he believed Trump committed an offense. He didn't do that either because he didn't want to.

I don't remember reading that in the SC report or in Mueller's press statement.

I actually think you have poor comprehension skills, well below average.

Mueller never said "We did not determine that President Trump committed an offence because I didn't want to"

What he actually said was
https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644237/robert-mueller-remarks-transcript
"And beyond Department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge"


And Mueller clearly stated that if he concluded that the President had not committed an offence then he would have said so.
"And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

To say that you can't prove a negative is just twisting it.
Mueller and his team are legally adept people. They were looking for crimes. They can quite clearly tell if a scenario is a crime or not.
I go into a shop, I pick up an item, I present that item at the cashier counter, the shop attendant asks me for money, I give them the required money. I leave with the item.

Did I commit a crime?
Answer: No

So given the Obstruction related events documented about Trump's actions, did he commit a crime?
The SC could not claim that he did not commit a crime.

Why?
Hint - it's not because they didn't want to say so. It's because of the stated reasons. Rather than the reason that rjs330 tells us "He didn't want to"

 

[USincognito]

Did I use the word prosecute? I don't think so. At least not that I recall.

You used the word "prosecuted" which was the word I noted you used when I quoted you.

And who has prosecuted him? Nobody.

So yes, you did use the word prosecuted just as I noted that you did.

Yep having conversations on the internet are difficult. Please quote me saying no criminal activity exists and do include the context please.

Why would I do that? I never claimed you said "no criminal activity exists".

How bizarre that over 1000 DOJ prosecutors were able to find the criminal activity in Vol. II of the report, but Some Dude On The Internet says it doesn't exist.

And who is this dude on the internet that says no criminal activity exists? I'd like to meet him.

Do you understand what the "it" refers to? "It" does not refer to all criminal activity. "It" refers to the part in bold which is the criminal activity in Vol. II of the (Mueller) report. I don't know why this not perfectly clear to anyone reading.

 

[KCfromNC]

Loaded with irony and continued, selective reading and interpretation.

Hey, whatever floats your boat, knock yourself out.

Thanks for the substantive contribution to the thread.

 

[KCfromNC]

Please point to the law you are referring to.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

 

[KCfromNC]

Spoken by the same people who are so bent on pointing out that the word collusion wasn't in the investigation mandate but collaboration was

Yes, I tend to stick to the facts rather than wanting to speculate as to why someone who couldn't do something didn't actually do it. Not sure why you'd think that was useful to point out. I'd have thought it was kind of a baseline for dealing with reality.

But apparently they aren't finding he did anything wrong either.

Citation needed.

 

[KCfromNC]

Can you tell me who the "someone who matters" is that you would listen to? We have a number of members of congress who have said such. If they don't fulfill the "someone who matters" criteria, then who might you be referring to? Or is this a way to differentiate the process of impeachment (which doesn't require crimes), from a prosecutor's criminal charges? I'm confused, frankly.

Trying to make sense of right wing spin will tend to cause confusion. The goal isn't to make you think deeply about a subject, it is to provide rationalizations to keep believing what one wishes were true despite the evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

But I don't recall him saying the Russians didn't do anything. I looked on the internet to try and find a quote where he said Russia didn't do any meddling. I didn't find any.

Trump sides with Russia against FBI

After face-to-face talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mr Trump contradicted US intelligence agencies and said there had been no reason for Russia to meddle in the vote.

Mr Putin reiterated that Russia had never interfered in US affairs.

At a news conference after the summit, President Trump was asked if he believed his own intelligence agencies or the Russian president when it came to the allegations of meddling in the elections.

"President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be," he replied.
​

 

[KCfromNC]

Here is the simple fact, mueller could have said; my interpretation of the guidelines, is a sitting president can not be indicted, so i have refrained from doing so. But, my investigation, indicates that obstruction occured.

He could have, but what actual difference would it have made? How would the situation be any different today if he had?

Again, this reads like an attempt to distract from the results of investigation and make it about a single person's decision to not do something that would have had absolutely zero effect. It's a very weird point to obsess over. I mean, why not worry about what Mueller had for lunch during the investigation or what color socks he wore? Those are just as "important".

 

[KCfromNC]

It's about people discussing the SC report, discussing the evidence presented, discussing the SC position, discussing what the next steps are, if there are to be next steps...

You'd think it would be a discussion of the evidence, but instead there are a lot of posts questioning why one person didn't do one particular thing he wasn't really allowed to do anyway. Kinda makes one wonder why the post would be hyper-focused on that one talking point instead of wanting to discuss the actual facts of the case.

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks for the substantive contribution to the thread.

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

 

[rjs330]

No one is debating you on the point that Mueller didn't accuse Trump of a crime.

And no one is debating you on the point that the House haven't started impeachment proceedings on the grounds that the sitting President has committed high crimes or misdemeanours.

Do you have anything more to add?

Then what are they doing?