• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Mueller says messaging apps likely destroyed Trump-Russia evidence

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by FreeinChrist, Apr 19, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,542
    Atheist
    Private
    Interesting questions from someone who earlier in the thread was implying that this report cleared Trump.

    Look, I get the "ask random questions as a distraction" approach is tempting, but be careful using it in cases where it makes your earlier posts look like they're based on ignorance of the subject.

    I really don't care to convince you of anything. I was just interested in showing that your earlier assertion about Trump being cleared by the investigation were unfounded. If you want to continue to ignore what's in the report itself, that's on you.
     
  2. Verv

    Verv Senior Veteran

    +578
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    In Relationship
    US-Republican
    Have you read the report?
     
  3. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +9,813
    Belize
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    It is here:
    The full text of Robert Mueller's report on Trump and Russia


    The Mueller Report is 448 pages long. Vol. 1 deals with the Russian hacking and possibility of criminal conspiracy. That takes up 199 pages. Vol 2. deals with possible obstruction by Trump and his administration.
    There are plenty of threads here as to why folks think Trump is certainly guilty of collusion (which is not a legal thing - criminal conspiracy is) and of obstruction.
    The report lays out 10 instances related to obstruction, and includes:

    Mueller cannot confidently state Trump didn’t obstruct justice

    One reason Mueller's prosecutors said they could not clear Trump on obstruction of justice was that while the president was confident his campaign had not conspired with Russia to sway the 2016 election, he was still fearful that the FBI might uncover other crimes during its probe.

    “The evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President had an otherwise unlawful relationship with any Russian official,” Mueller’s team wrote.

    “But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.”

    Among those concerns were the fact that Trump was still seeking business in Russia through the 2016 campaign, including efforts his aides were making to advance a Trump Tower Moscow project.​

    and


    [​IMG]
    and

    Mueller: Congress still has ability to find the President obstructed justice


    In special counsel Robert Mueller's report, the team writes that:

    "With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice."

    However, this thread has wandered off the topic a bit, and should not be about each other.
    Please stay on topic.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  4. Verv

    Verv Senior Veteran

    +578
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    In Relationship
    US-Republican
    That is very informative Free in Christ, thank you very much.

    I do not see any new information that shows that the President actually obstructed justice or colluded with the Russians, though. If someone would like to post that or bring my attention to that, that sounds great. I'll gladly discuss it.

    So feel free to tag me in somewhere, KC.
     
  5. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +9,813
    Belize
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    The obstruction is spelled out in the second part of report.

    But you need to read that for yourself.
     
  6. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,542
    Atheist
    Private
    I'm sure if there were anything of substance in there to back up your claims that it cleared the president they will be posted. So far, that hasn't happened. I'll continue to wait.
     
  7. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,542
    Atheist
    Private
    There's a good link to the stuff from the executive summaries here : Read Robert Mueller’s Written Summaries of His Russia Report
    As you mentioned, skipping to Volume II will list the actions Trump took to obstruct the investigation.
     
  8. Verv

    Verv Senior Veteran

    +578
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    In Relationship
    US-Republican
    Oh, so the burden falls on me to begin by proving his innocence in this thread?

    Prove the innocence of the President who hasn't been charged in spite of extensive efforts to do so..?

    Sure, KC. You are free to believe I have such a burden while simultaneously providing us with nothing.

    It's pretty bold to make claims and pretend I have to do all the footwork to dismiss them.
     
  9. rjs330

    rjs330 Well-Known Member

    +1,820
    Pentecostal
    How long did it take you to read the report?
     
  10. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,542
    Atheist
    Private
    Yep, that's how it works. Make claims in a thread, be asked to back them up. Especially after being shown quotes that what you're saying doesn't line up with reality.

    I mean, you're not forced to or anything. But personally I think your posts would look more credible if you at least tried.
     
  11. Belk

    Belk Senior Member Supporter

    +6,783
    Agnostic
    Married

    No, the burden falls to you to you to evidence your claims that the report clears the president. For some odd reason you keep expending energy trying to dodge this burden instead of simply pointing out the evidence that is contained in the document you claimed you have not read.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2019
  12. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +15,940
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    Those people would be in error.

    The conclusions of the report are nuanced. You don't get to take "not exonerated" and turn it into "exonerated" simply because the findings did not find sufficient grounds to level a criminal charge.

    It's fairly clear from the report that, ultimately, Mueller is handing the reigns of these matters over to Congress. Part of the reasoning Mueller brings up is the opinion that one maybe can't indict a sitting president for the abuse of their powers, or at least how that can open up a massive can of worms.

    Simply put: These are uncharted waters as far as American politics are concerned.

    So, no, the Mueller report wasn't what some people hoped for: a scathing report of Donald Trump and his administration's criminal behavior leading to criminal charges.

    Neither is the report an exoneration or a clearing of Trump or the Trump administration of abuses and corruption of power.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  13. Verv

    Verv Senior Veteran

    +578
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    In Relationship
    US-Republican
    My apologies to everyone -- I was on vacation.

    Alright, so I have to prove that Pres. Trump was innocent?

    OK, here goes nothing:

    Until someone is proven guilty of a crime, they are innocent, because a negative cannot be proven.


    My evidence would be that the President is cleared because he is not charged with a crime, and anyone who has not been charged with a crime -- now, what, a month plus after the event -- is clear.

    Or, would you like me to say that "he will be cleared" because ... these many weeks of inaction on the topic are not enough to say he is cleared?

    ... I guess the same question would apply to you, right?

    If it is not enough that the investigation of him cannot bring charges against him for him to be considered cleared, what is?

    How long do we have to collectively wait without charges being filled for him to be considered cleared?
     
  14. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,542
    Atheist
    Private
    No, that the report cleared him, as you asserted in post 16.
     
  15. whatbogsends

    whatbogsends Senior Veteran

    +4,070
    Atheist
    The fact that he was not charged for obstructing justice and appears to have no plans for doing that is not an exoneration, it's following DOJ protocols which don't allow for a sitting President to be charged. There is clear evidence in Section 2 of the Mueller Report which outlines actions that constitute obstruction of justice, that he can't be charged with because he's a sitting President.

    Perhaps you missed this: STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
     
  16. Belk

    Belk Senior Member Supporter

    +6,783
    Agnostic
    Married
    As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is specious logic. If you can not point to were the report clears him then I don't see how you can claim him cleared by the report.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2019
  17. Verv

    Verv Senior Veteran

    +578
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    In Relationship
    US-Republican
    So, if your son was investigated for an arson, but the final report accompany the investigation did not present a case for your son to be indicted, and the local prosecutor was not going to press charges against him...

    Could you say that the report cleared him?

    Or does the report have to officially say it cleared him?

    This sounds rather obtuse, doesn't it?

    I think there is a very silly attitude here -- and it has been shown repeatedly -- that the Mueller report is suddenly inconsequential because you didn't like the results.

    You should definitely get on it, then: it sounds like you have an amazing case against the sitting President that he has obstructed justice in the 2-year investigation into Russian collusion that turned up absolutely nothing in spite of the fact that he was forthcoming for the totality of those two years.

    ... Why do you think that the wheels of justice aren't turning this way?

    Is it because the case is actually not as airtight as you think it is, and thus it is not a slam dunk at all, and an impeachment wouldn't work...?

    Pres. Clinton was impeached, and then he finished his term... But you are not quite on that level, I think, and it takes a bit of hubris to make the claim that he has obstructed justice.
     
  18. Belk

    Belk Senior Member Supporter

    +6,783
    Agnostic
    Married
    Your analogy breaks at this point. This is the point in contention. You don't get to simply gloss over it as a given.
    Perhaps it would sound less so if you didn't try to paper over the point of contention?

    What in the blazes are you talking about? Several of us are trying to point out exactly how consequential the report is.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  19. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,542
    Atheist
    Private
    Did it have a 241 page report detailing all the fires he set? Just want to see how closely this hypothetical parallels reality.
     
  20. whatbogsends

    whatbogsends Senior Veteran

    +4,070
    Atheist
    No, the results of the Mueller investigation were in line with my expectations. There was plenty of evidence which indicates that Trump obstructed justice, and he was bound by the OLC guidelines in not being able to charge a sitting president.

    Congress is on it. The Mueller Report didn't "turn up nothing". That is a fabrication put forth my Trump and Barr. Interestingly, Trump is trying to limit the disclosure of this document that he claims "turned up nothing". If it truly says what he says it does, he would want that document put forth for all to see in its full glory.

    As far as why the wheels of justice are so slow, the answer is obvious. The President is the single most powerful person in the US government. Actions, such as impeachment, are not done lightly. With the politics of the Senate, and partisan loyalty being what it is, Congress knows that impeaching the President will not likely result in the removal of Trump from office. As such, they are measuring the political calculations rather than the legal consequences.

    Personally, I think they are fools to think that impeachment will galvanize Trump's base and give Trump fuel for the 2020 election. Trump's base is already galvanized. Not much will make them line up for Trump any more than they are already doing. What impeachment proceedings will highlight is just how dishonest Trump is. Which we all know, but it will be even harder to bury your head in the sand if he lies under oath. That being said, I don't think Trump will submit himself under oath. I think he will try to use his power and influence to extra-constitutionally prevent any impeachment proceedings. I'm curious as to how far his supporters will go to support him in such actions. Based on what we've seen so far, i'm not sure there's any line in the sand which will dissuade them.


    Where did I make the claim "he has obstructed justice"? My claim, which I will repeat verbatim is "There is clear evidence in Section 2 of the Mueller Report which outlines actions that constitute obstruction of justice, that he can't be charged with because he's a sitting President." Whether that evidence would be enough to convict is for the courts to decide, but people more familiar with applicable law than I (you know, the former federal prosecutors that I referenced in my last post), believe there is enough evidence to indict, at the very least.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...