There will be different versions of Mueller report for different people...

[Justified112]

I notice the interesting thing is that even Trump's most loyal apologists no longer argue that he didn't do anything wrong. They now assert that he can't be indicted for the things he did.

Until he leaves office.

We never said he did nothing wrong. We said that he did not commit a crime and we are vindicated by the Mueller report which did not find that a crime had been committed by either Trump or his family. If he had committed a crime, the Mueller report would have noted that even without formally indicting him for it.

It is precisely because the Mueller report didn't deliver what they wanted, that Mueller is now being called on the carpet for his part in destroying the Democrats' conspiracy theories about collusion and obstruction.

 

[Justified112]

Once you've been here awhile you'll find out this is quite prevalent.

LOL Yes, I am seeing that now.

 

[The Barbarian]

We never said he did nothing wrong.

Do a search on "nothing burger." C'mon. That doesn't even work for Trump, any more.

We said that he did not commit a crime

That's a great slogan for his campaign. "Trump; did bad things, but still unindicted!"

and we are vindicated by the Mueller report

That's not what Mueller said:

Undercutting Trump’s claim that Mueller, in addition to Barr, had cleared him of wrongdoing on obstruction, Mueller wrote that if his office had confidence that Trump did not commit obstruction, “we would so state.” But based on the facts and the law, he wrote, “we were unable to reach that judgment.”
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/donald-trump-obstruction-mueller-report

Mueller referred evidence of 14 other potential crimes to federal officials. Only two of them are publicly known
Key Points

• The Mueller report answers some questions, but it also raises new ones about what Mueller uncovered that did not get released to the public.
• Among these is a tantalizing list of 14 instances of “potential criminal activity” that the special counsel says it uncovered and handed over to other offices within the Justice Department.
• Of these 14 potential crimes, only two are known to the public — meaning there are 12 other potential crimes that are still being investigated about which the public is completely in the dark.

Mueller uncovered evidence of 14 other potential crimes. Only two of them are publicly known.

Nor did Mueller exonerate Trump of conspiracy with Russia. He merely noted that he did not find enough evidence to get a conviction.

It is precisely because the Mueller report didn't exonerate Trump, that Mueller is now being once again attacked by Donald Trump, and his followers are frantically denying what the report says.[/QUOTE]

 

[Justified112]

Do a search on "nothing burger." C'mon. That doesn't even work for Trump, any more.

No, I am simply not submitting to your dishonest representation of what we have said.

That's a great slogan for his campaign. "Trump; did bad things, but still unindicted!"

Trump DID do bad things, but none of them were actual crimes.

That's not what Mueller said:

Undercutting Trump’s claim that Mueller, in addition to Barr, had cleared him of wrongdoing on obstruction, Mueller wrote that if his office had confidence that Trump did not commit obstruction, “we would so state.” But based on the facts and the law, he wrote, “we were unable to reach that judgment.”
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/donald-trump-obstruction-mueller-report

Mueller referred evidence of 14 other potential crimes to federal officials. Only two of them are publicly known
Key Points

• The Mueller report answers some questions, but it also raises new ones about what Mueller uncovered that did not get released to the public.
• Among these is a tantalizing list of 14 instances of “potential criminal activity” that the special counsel says it uncovered and handed over to other offices within the Justice Department.
• Of these 14 potential crimes, only two are known to the public — meaning there are 12 other potential crimes that are still being investigated about which the public is completely in the dark.

Mueller uncovered evidence of 14 other potential crimes. Only two of them are publicly known.

Nor did Mueller exonerate Trump of conspiracy with Russia. He merely noted that he did not find enough evidence to get a conviction.

It is precisely because the Mueller report didn't exonerate Trump, that Mueller is now being once again attacked by Donald Trump, and his followers are frantically denying what the report says.

Either crimes were committed or they didn't. Either Mueller had a case for obstruction or he doesn't. What you're doing is projecting legal spin on to the Mueller report and trying to make a case for crimes that Mueller didn't make. The report does not make the case that either obstruction or collusion occurred and since collusion didn't happen, and there is no evidence for it, Trump cannot obstruct justice for a crime he didn't commit.

As for exoneration, it was not Mueller's job to exonerate Trump; he was not tasked with exonerating Trump and neither should he do so, as his report was an adversarial document. It's purpose was document if collusion or obstruction by the Trump team had been committed. His job was to simply submit the report and he made NO further indictments of Trump or his family or anyone else in Trump's orbit. Remember, that the claims being leveled by the Democrats is that Trump's campaign team, including his family, colluded with the Russians, not just Trump alone. Mueller did not have a responsibility to exonerate Trump, so we should not expect that his lack of exoneration means that Trump is guilty of a crime.

While Trump cannot be indicted, if he and his team committed crimes, they could be indicted, but no evidence was found sufficient to warrant further indictments of anyone connected with Trump. If they could have indicted Don Jr. or Ivanka or anyone else on the Trump team, they would have, but did not have sufficient cause, which speaks to the fact that the president didn't commit anything warranting a formal indictment either.

I would also add that since this is a an adversarial document it is important to note that the claims in the report that you are citing have not been cross-examined. His lawyers have not yet had a chance to publicly respond and cross examine the authors of the report about their findings. There is always two-sides to everything and Trump has a right, if they are going to accuse him of anything, to test the validity of those claims in a court of law.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that many Trump defenders have falsely claimed he did nothing wrong)

No, I am simply not submitting to your dishonest representation of what we have said.

Well, let's take a look...
Post 109 in this thread:

Once again a big nothing burger. Since Trump did not terminate Mueller, the point is irrelevant.

Post 18

Another nothing burger.

Trump DID do bad things, but none of them were actual crimes.

Mueller disagrees.
If we were talking about Mr. Trump, not President Trump, we’d be talking about an indictment for obstruction of justice. Today we know that Attorney General Barr put a highly positive (for Trump) gloss on the report. Today we know that Mueller found substantial wrongdoing that would plague, and perhaps end, any other presidency in American history. Today we know that perhaps the difference between a suggestion that Trump be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and a suggestion that he not be was 1) Mueller’s inability to sit down and speak with the Trump without subpoenaing him and Mueller’s decision not to subpoena Trump, and 2) actions by Trump’s staffers that may have protected the president from legal liability.
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484731/mueller-report-trump-barr-obstruction-legal-experts

While Trump cannot be indicted, if he and his team committed crimes, they could be indicted, but no evidence was found sufficient to warrant further indictments of anyone connected with Trump.

Unless you've been living in a cave, you know better than that.

Mueller's investigation is done. Here are the 34 people he indicted along the way
Mueller's investigation is done. Here are the 34 people he indicted along the way

There is always two-sides to everything and Trump has a right, if they are going to accuse him of anything, to test the validity of those claims in a court of law.

It seems likely that he'll get that chance, after leaving office.

 

[Justified112]

(Barbarian notes that many Trump defenders have falsely claimed he did nothing wrong)



Well, let's take a look...
Post 109 in this thread:


Post 18




Mueller disagrees.
If we were talking about Mr. Trump, not President Trump, we’d be talking about an indictment for obstruction of justice. Today we know that Attorney General Barr put a highly positive (for Trump) gloss on the report. Today we know that Mueller found substantial wrongdoing that would plague, and perhaps end, any other presidency in American history. Today we know that perhaps the difference between a suggestion that Trump be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and a suggestion that he not be was 1) Mueller’s inability to sit down and speak with the Trump without subpoenaing him and Mueller’s decision not to subpoena Trump, and 2) actions by Trump’s staffers that may have protected the president from legal liability.
Does the Mueller report exonerate Trump? We asked 12 legal experts.

Again, if he had found that crimes had actually been committed he would have said so in the report. He didn't.

Unless you've been living in a cave, you know better than that.

What I said was that the report handed down NO FURTHER indictments. I didn't say no one got indicted and none of those indictments had anything to do with collusion with the Russians or anything Trump did during his campaign. Most of those were process crimes unrelated to Trump, such as in the case with Cohen and Manafort, were things done unrelated to Trump and were committed before they were associated with Trump. None of those indictments touch Trump where the accusations of collusion or obstruction are concerned.

It seems likely that he'll get that chance, after leaving office.

He had a chance to indict Trump's family since they stood accused of the same stuff and they were not found to have committed any crimes for which they were accused. And that is the weakness of your argument. If Trump AND his team committed collusion with the Russians, then his whole team could be indicted, but they weren't. And Trump will not be indicted after he is out office, because the Mueller report didn't say, "we found he committed crimes, but we can't do anything until he is out of office." All criminal accusations were resolved and no crimes were committed.

But when it comes to Democrats, it isn't about getting to the truth. It is about making Trump guilty at any cost. If they can't get him on evidence, they will make him guilty if it's the last thing they do. It's a taste of the kind of soviet-style police state we would have if Hillary had won.

 

[The Barbarian]

Justified112 denies anyone said that Trump did nothing wrong:

(Barbarian offers two examples)

Again, if he had found that crimes had actually been committed he would have said so in the report. He didn't.

He listed several examples of Trump attempting to obstruct the investigation. He's merely following DOJ opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted.

What I said was that the report handed down NO FURTHER indictments.

No, that's not what you said. You said that there was nothing that warranted more indictments. But that's yet to be determined.

I didn't say no one got indicted and none of those indictments had anything to do with collusion with the Russians or anything Trump did during his campaign. Most of those were process crimes unrelated to Trump, such as...

Trump's national security advisor lying to the FBI about contacts with Russian agents. If you think that's a process crime, then we've found the problem.

He had a chance to indict Trump's family since they stood accused of the same stuff and they were not found to have committed any crimes for which they were accused.

Nor were they cleared. The investigations of those people are still underway.

And Trump will not be indicted after he is out office,

The Justice Department already has documented in the Mueller report, a number of Trump attempts to obstruct the investigation. That's a crime. While Mueller accepted that a sitting president can't be indicted, a former president can be.

But when it comes to Trump loyalists, it isn't about getting to the truth. It is about making Trump innocent at any cost. If the law gets him on evidence, they will make him innocent if it's the last thing they do. It's a taste of the kind of soviet-style police state we have in the Trump administration.

 

[Justified112]

Justified112 denies anyone said that Trump did nothing wrong:

(Barbarian offers two examples)

What I said was that we do not believe he committed any crimes. We did not say that Trump did nothing "wrong." One could commit a wrong doing without it necessarily rising to the level to the level of a crime.

He listed several examples of Trump attempting to obstruct the investigation. He's merely following DOJ opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted.

No, what the report said was that there were things that were questionable in that regard, but there was not enough evidence to warrant charging him with a crime.

No, that's not what you said. You said that there was nothing that warranted more indictments. But that's yet to be determined.

That is what I said, but you don't have the honesty or integrity to handle my words correctly. I said that the report recommended NO further indictments when it was handed to the DOJ. I made the point clear.

Trump's national security advisor lying to the FBI about contacts with Russian agents. If you think that's a process crime, then we've found the problem.

Comey said that Flynn didn't lie>>> Report: Comey Told Lawmakers Flynn Didn't Lie to FBI

Nor were they cleared. The investigations of those people are still underway.

They were investigated and no crimes were found. He is not still investigating them.

The Justice Department already has documented in the Mueller report, a number of Trump attempts to obstruct the investigation. That's a crime. While Mueller accepted that a sitting president can't be indicted, a former president can be.

You keep beating that same drum, but the report doesn't say that a crime had been committed. YOU are assigning that value to the findings.

But when it comes to Trump loyalists, it isn't about getting to the truth. It is about making Trump innocent at any cost. If the law gets him on evidence, they will make him innocent if it's the last thing they do. It's a taste of the kind of soviet-style police state we have in the Trump administration.

Ah yes, I was wondering when this immature, childish nonsense would surface again. This is the garbage you resort to when an intelligent, adult response is out of your reach.

I will make this really, really simple for you. We don't have to make him innocent. He is presumed innocent under our system of jurisprudence. We are not making him guilty. We are holding up the factd that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. YOU are operating from a Stalinist, anti-American system of justice that looks for a crime and then tries to make someone guilty of it.

 

[Gigimo]

LOL Yes, I am seeing that now.

It's hard to have an honest conversation with some folks especially the ones dedicated to spin and propaganda. When the conversation gets to that point and goes down the rabbit hole I just stand at the rim look down at them, chuckle and wave bye-bye and move on to the next thread. I realize doing this gives them the impression "they won" but it's more not wanting to waste time than anything else.

 

[Justified112]

It's hard to have an honest conversation with some folks especially the ones dedicated to spin and propaganda. When the conversation gets to that point and goes down the rabbit hole I just stand at the rim look down at them, chuckle and wave bye-bye and move on to the next thread. I realize doing this gives them the impression "they won" but it's more not wanting to waste time than anything else.

Yes, it's probably time to move on. In fact, given that Barbarian seems follow the same patterns, it is probably best for me to put him on ignore. I really have no more time for noisy fellows like him.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Justified112 denies anyone said that Trump did nothing wrong:

(Barbarian offers two examples)

What I said was that we do not believe he committed any crimes.

Well, let's take a look. You wrote...

Justified112 said: ↑
We never said he did nothing wrong.

I just gave you two examples. Would you like to see them again?

He listed several examples of Trump attempting to obstruct the investigation. He's merely following DOJ opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted.

No,

He did. It's in the report. No point in denying the fact.

No, that's not what you said. You said that there was nothing that warranted more indictments. But that's yet to be determined.

That is what I said, but you don't have the honesty or integrity to handle my words correctly.

I don't lie because (among other things) I don't have a very good memory. I wish everyone followed that practice.

Comey said that Flynn didn't lie>>> Report: Comey Told Lawmakers Flynn Didn't Lie to FBI

Moot point if it's true. Flynn now admits that he did lie to them.

They were investigated and no crimes were found.

There are 12 investigations of Trump and his family/associates still ongoing.

Here Are the Other Investigations President Trump Still Faces
Trump Still Faces More Than a Dozen Investigations

What is your first-blush takeaway on the matter of obstruction of justice as laid out in the report?
There are some extraordinary revelations. The first is that Mueller’s decision not to reach traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding obstruction of justice was due to the fact that he was prevented under Department of Justice policy from charging the president while he’s in office.
Renato Mariotti on Why Mueller Didn’t Charge Trump With Obstruction of Justice

[redirected generic snark]But when it comes to Trump loyalists, it isn't about getting to the truth. It is about making Trump innocent at any cost. If the law gets him on evidence, they will make him innocent if it's the last thing they do. It's a taste of the kind of soviet-style police state we have in the Trump administration.[/redirected generic snark]

Ah yes, I was wondering when this immature, childish nonsense would surface again. This is the garbage you resort to when an intelligent, adult response is out of your reach.

Actually, it's your words, with different names plugged in. And yes, your words are indeed "immature childish nonsense." But you can't see it when you do it. Everyone else sees it, though. You're wising up, now.

I will make this really, really simple for you. We don't have to make him innocent. He is presumed innocent under our system of jurisprudence.

Yep. And he'll get his day in court when he leaves office. But the evidence that he attempted to obstruct the investigation is all laid out in the report.

We are not making him guilty.

No one made him do it. Indeed, his own people refused to do what he ordered them to do. But as you learned, merely attempting to obstruct is a crime.

We are holding up the factd that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The standard for conviction is much stricter than the standard for realizing what he did. That's why Mueller pointed out the times he attempted to obstruct the investigation. When he leaves office, it will be important to have this documentation.

YOU are operating from a Stalinist, anti-American system of justice that looks for a crime and then tries to make someone guilty of it.

You're a little confused. I didn't document those attempts. Mueller did. And he specifically avoided indicting Trump, because the DOJ stand is that a sitting president can't be indicted. So we'll have to wait until he leaves office to get those resolved.

 

[HannahT]

If Clinton had attempted to obstruct justice, she'd have been indicted, because she wasn't a president. Mueller did not indicted Trump because the Justice Department opinion is that a sitting president can't be indicted.

That is incorrect. The said during the Press Conference that Mueller was pressed on that issue, and he said that was NOT the case. Matter of fact he volunteered that more than once.

Clinton misused classified information, and she lied about even having it.

Not according to Comey. "Careless" is the opposite of "intent."

His quote was: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

So, yeah - intent was part of it. They didn't intend to violate laws, but they did.

More to the point, federal law says that an attempt to obstruct is a crime. And Mueller documented a number of instances where Trump attempted to commit obstruction.

When Trump leaves office, he can then be indicted.

He can be indicted. Barr said if you place the comments in context? You can't prove criminal intent, because you would have to prove what was in his mind at the time. For example, they used the call to release Clinton 'missing' emails during campaign. You would have to prove that Trump wasn't being sarcastic. That wouldn't be so easy.

In other words, they would have to prove intent just like Clinton. That is a high hill to climb. Why do you think for the most part people are looking for a another tree to bark at? They have moved on to his financials already. If intent was that easy - as you are hinting at - they would be hammering it home. They wouldn't be saying - maybe or maybe not on impeachment. They would in fact be moving forward already.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If Clinton had attempted to obstruct justice, she'd have been indicted, because she wasn't a president. Mueller did not indicted Trump because the Justice Department opinion is that a sitting president can't be indicted.

That is incorrect.

No, you're wrong:

Mueller began by noting that the Office of Legal Counsel in the White House wrote in a 2000 memo that sitting presidents can’t be indicted because it would undermine their ability to oversee the nation’s criminal justice system. But he adds that doesn’t mean that a special counsel couldn’t investigate a presidential actions, since charges could be brought after they’ve left office.
Despite Evidence, Robert Mueller Would Not Say Whether Trump Obstructed Justice. Here's Why

Clinton misused classified information, and she lied about even having it.

It comes down to evidence. And as you know, the republicans "investigating" her, finally admitted there was nothing. On the other hand, Meuller cited several instances of Trump attempting to obstruct the investigation.

His quote was: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

No evidence, right.

So, yeah - intent was part of it.

Carelessness is not intent, but suppose someone in the WH were to do classified material on a private server now, that would be intent, wouldn't it?

Mr. Cummings also said that Ivanka Trump, the president’s eldest daughter, did not preserve some emails that were sent to her private account, as she claimed in the past, contradicting her own previous claims and possibly violating federal records laws.

It is not the first time that questions have been raised about how Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner have used private communications in their government roles. Both have used personal email accounts to communicate with other White House officials and cabinet secretaries about official business. But the irony of the new accusations was savored by Mrs. Clinton’s former aides.
The Use of Private Email and Chats, This Time by Trump’s Family, Comes Under Fire

He can be indicted. Barr said if you place the comments in context? You can't prove criminal intent, because you would have to prove what was in his mind at the time.

Juries decide that regularly. And it's not all that hard. The first time, when Trump asked a subordinate to obstruct the investigation, he was educated about why that would be an impeachable crime. So each time thereafter, he intended to violate the law.

But as Mueller says, it will have to wait until he leaves office. He really, really wants to win the next election.