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

[rjs330]

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

 

[USincognito]

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.

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.

 

[USincognito]

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.

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.

 

[Allandavid]

And Mueller dis not present any evidence of a crime nor did he state he believed a crime had been committed.

Ummm, yes he did actually......you’re still not game to read his report, are you...?

 

[KCfromNC]

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 could have, but he didn't. It wasn't his job, and that conclusion would hold zero weight if he did.

I really don't get this obsession. What would be different if he came out and said that he was confident Trump was guilty of obstruction? Trump still couldn't be charged, it would still have to go to the House for an impeachment vote and trial, and so on. I simply can't understand why anyone would keep coming back to this talking point rather than focusing on the actual substance of the Mueller report. It feels like it is supposed to imply something about something, but no one can seem to identify what either of the things are.

 

[KCfromNC]

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?

To prosecute people if they participated in Russian interference in the 2016 election. And lo and behold, a lot of Donald's employees are sitting in prison now because of the investigation. And we also have a huge document listing multiple attempts by Donald to stop the investigation.

 

[stevil]

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.
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.

Was the point to say 'we couldn't exonerate?" I don't think that was the mandate.

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 was for him to find wrong doing including if Trump cooperated, collaborated etc with the Russians.

The mandate wasn't about Trump.
It was about the Russians and the Trump campain.

And Mueller dis not present any evidence of a crime

Mueller did document the evidence, it is in the report.

nor did he state he believed a crime had been committed.

Mueller, explained why the SC didn't assess if Trump himself committed a crime.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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. I am sure that if they had confidence that Trump did commit a crime they would have said so. Mueller says he chose his words very carefully. I believe him. He avoided saying things like " I don't have evidence to prove that Trump committed a crime." and said the convoluted nonsense about not having confidence he was innocent of a crime. By refusing to answer questions he does not have to be less vague so he can leave the impression that the only reason he hasn't said Trump committed a crime is that he is not allowed to charge Trump with a crime. However, since he is not precluded from saying Trump committed a crime it is obvious to me that Mueller is trying to imply something that he cannot prove after years of attempting to prove. By saying he has no confidence that Trump did not commit a crime he is only saying a thing that can be said of every person on the face of the earth.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

How much first hand experience do you have with internal DoJ policies about charging sitting presidents with felonies? Just curious how much weight your opinion holds compared to the people who do this for a living.

 

[KCfromNC]

Or Barr probably ordered Mueller to interpret DOJ policy that way.

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?

 

[KCfromNC]

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

What specifically do you find wishy-washy about the documented obstructive acts in Volume II of the report. Please be specific?

I'm starting to see the reason for the attempted distraction to which particular way Mueller did or didn't choose to characterize the results of the investigation. It is a pretty transparent attempt to shift the discussion away from the facts of the case towards the man himself. And all of these vague not-quite-an-accusation discussions about him are kinda weak attempts to undermine him, and thus hopefully the report.

 

[KCfromNC]

It was never Mueller’s call (whether the President “committed a crime”).
That responsibility belongs to the House.

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.

 

[Kaon]

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.

It was mentioned on pages 168
of Volume 2 of the Mueller report that it would be without merit to conclude there was no obstruction.

 

[NotreDame]

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.

No, your characterization of those 5 specific acts, including ostensibly the one or two where the evidence is very strong, as "opinion" is not accurate. The evidence for those five is strong, minimizing your point it is just "opinion."

While it is true Trump is innocent until proven guilty, a court room standard, this does not preclude the ability of others to look at the evidence and with a very high degree of confidence reach a conclusion Trump committed a crime. You can repeat, ad nauseum, Trump is innocent until proven guilty but this misses the fact people can and have drawn conclusions as to whether Trump committed a crime based on the evidence. Despite your misplaced protestations, there is strong evidence, very strong in regards to two specific instances, supporting the notion Trump committed a crime. Alleging Trump is innocent until proven guilty does not adequately address those scrutinizing the facts and concluding, on the strength of those facts, Trump committed a crime.

You will have to engage the facts to rebut the allegations Trump committed a crime, something you have yet to do in any post in this thread.

 

[stevil]

I am sure that if they had confidence that Trump did commit a crime they would have said so.

This completely ignores what Mueller actually said in his statement, and completely ignores what is written in the report.

Seems you know better than Mueller.


Mueller was not "out to get Trump".
This investigation was not a witch hunt for Trump.

Although, given Trump's constant tweeting that it was, and Fox news' constant confirmation of this narrative, I can understand why you might think this is the case.

 

[rjs330]

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.

There are facts. The question is interpreting the facts. Right now you and other left wingers interpret the facts as obstruction. No one who matters has said he obstructed. Mueller didn't say so, and no one in the justice department or the FBI has stated he might have committed a crime. Trump isn't been impeached for committing a crime either. You interpret the actions as criminal when in fact they are criminal until the justice system says they are.

In our justice system we have a presumption of innocence. You ARE innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosection. And Trump hasn't been prosecuted for anything. Therefore he IS innocent.

IF Trump is impeached it will be interesting see what he is impeached for. He very well could be, but so far no one has even started impeachment proceedings. Right now many of the Democrats are still not on board with impeachment. But we'll see.

 

[rjs330]

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.

They did exonerate the president for collusion collaboration, conspiracy or whatever word one wants to use in the Russian probe. They found nothing regarding him or his people on that account. Mueller did list 5 things regarding obstruction. But fell short of accusing him of such. And no one has filed charges against Trump for it either. Therefore Trump is INNOCENT.

They can't find Trump guilty if a crime, but he sure could have accused him of one. They didn't.

 

[USincognito]

Right now you and other left wingers....

I need you to stop lying about me.