Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not entirely accurate. There are 5 specific acts of conduct in the Report in which Mueller presents a strong case of obstruction, and of those 5 at least one if not two reads as Mueller telegraphing Trump obstructed as a very strong conclusion.
Those 5 specific acts are still matters of opinion on if they are evidence of a crime. They may not be evidence of any criminal activity. Trump is INNOCENT until proven guilty. He committed no crime. Even IF he was impeached it STILL would not be evidence of criminal activity. The president does not have to have committed a crime in order to be impeached. Trump is INNOCENT until proven guilty.
Had anyone actually read the secod part of the report? There's plenty of evidence of obstruction, it's just not conclusive. With obstruction you need intent and substantial step which are a matter of fact for a judge, jury, or in this case Congress.
And Mueller dis not present any evidence of a crime nor did he state he believed a crime had been committed.
He could have, but he didn't. It wasn't his job, and that conclusion would hold zero weight if he did.I disagree and why you appoint a special council to begin with. He cant indict, but he can make a conclusion, based on his own investigation.
He also didn't conclude that Trump had committed a crime as you point out. If the point wasn't to investigate and determine if a crime had occurred or not then what was the point?
I think it is very important to understand that the Special Council investigation wasn't focused on Donald Trump.He also didn't conclude that Trump had committed a crime as you point out. If the point wasn't to investigate and determine if a crime had occurred or not then what was the point?
They were investigating Russian interference in the USA election and if any person(s) in the Trump campaign collaborated with the Russians in their attempts to interfere.Was the point to say 'we couldn't exonerate?" I don't think that was the mandate.
The mandate wasn't about Trump.The mandate was for him to find wrong doing including if Trump cooperated, collaborated etc with the Russians.
Mueller did document the evidence, it is in the report.And Mueller dis not present any evidence of a crime
Mueller, explained why the SC didn't assess if Trump himself committed a crime.nor did he state he believed a crime had been committed.
Well in College I became an expert skimmer, I gave it the once over. Nothing I haven't seen in the news but I've watched the administration closely. Now Trump is ranting the Mueller is a never Trumper which shows a tremendous ignorance of how these people function, especially Mueller. Trump rejected him as FBI director? I mean who is honestly going to think with the private practice he is involved in he would even want the post, been there done that, he has moved on. Disparaging this man has all but ruined him with me and there is noise coming from the House that sounds like a storm on the horizon. This man who said he was going to be the law and order President and ran rough shot through the DOJ without any provocation whatsoever.Apparently the talk radio and Fox fans here (and out in middle America) are unaware the vol. II even exists. Probably because Hannity and Ingraham are too busy blabbing about the Steele dossier.
1) Does this statement from Mueller's press conference today change your understanding of the report?
2)If it does: How?
If it does not: Why not?
Personally, it doesn't change my understanding as this is what I have understood from the beginning.
Nothing Mueller said changes anything. He even said that himself. His statement is a curious one. In some regards quite silly . If I had confidence that anything was the case I would say so I would not say I am not confident it is not the case.
Yeah, but what do they know about DOJ policy? I mean, seriously! We have random people on the internet saying that they would have done it totally differently if they were in charge. Why does Mueller not listen to them?Or Barr probably ordered Mueller to interpret DOJ policy that way.
What specifically do you find wishy-washy about the documented obstructive acts in Volume II of the report. Please be specific?Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Mueller did not present a case that said we believe Trump committed this crime and here's our evidence. There is much wishy washy in this one
And if he did, the objection would be something like "but that's for a jury to decide - why is this guy and his band of angry Democrats acting as judge, jury and executioner". It's just an attempt to set up a distraction from the actual results of the investigation.It was never Mueller’s call (whether the President “committed a crime”).
That responsibility belongs to the House.
then why would he mention it now? Trump is still in office and unless they impeach him he will remain in office for about another year and a half.
Those 5 specific acts are still matters of opinion on if they are evidence of a crime. They may not be evidence of any criminal activity. Trump is INNOCENT until proven guilty. He committed no crime. Even IF he was impeached it STILL would not be evidence of criminal activity. The president does not have to have committed a crime in order to be impeached. Trump is INNOCENT until proven guilty.
Those 5 specific acts are still matters of opinion on if they are evidence of a crime.
This completely ignores what Mueller actually said in his statement, and completely ignores what is written in the report.I am sure that if they had confidence that Trump did commit a crime they would have said so.
Wow. This is some serious, I don't quite know how to describe it, but it's functionally a disagreement with reality.
- The evidence showing Trump engaged in obstruction are facts, not opinion.
- No accused is considered "innocent". The are considered "not guilty" until demonstrated to be guilty by the evidence.
- In this case, we already have the evidence, Trump engaged in obstruction.
- If he is impeached, even if he's not convicted, it will be based on evidence discovered by the Special Counsel and the House of Representatives who found that evidence sufficient to impeach.
I think it is very important to understand that the Special Council investigation wasn't focused on Donald Trump.
It wasn't an investigation into whether Donald Trump had committed crimes.
But it is a valid question. Why investigate the president at all if you aren't going to conclude that he committed a crime?
In Mueller's statement to the press he addressed this.
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."
So it is to catch co-conspirators, and it preserves evidence, supposedly which can be used once the President is no longer in office. It could also be used by Congress to remove the president from office as a non Justice Department process.
They were investigating Russian interference in the USA election and if any person(s) in the Trump campaign collaborated with the Russians in their attempts to interfere.
I think they would have liked to have exonerated the president if the could. It would be better for the country to have confidence in their president.
But it does speak volumes for them to explicitly state that they could not exonerate him. Why even state that? We know they couldn't claim that he is guilty of something, so it does seem that they are giving strong hints that the evidence presented needs to be seriously considered and assessed as to whether it meets the criteria of a crime.
The mandate wasn't about Trump.
It was about the Russians and the Trump campain.
Mueller did document the evidence, it is in the report.
Mueller, explained why the SC didn't assess if Trump himself committed a crime.
Right now you and other left wingers....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?