Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report


Tiggs

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

A Dem's PoV:   Mueller's lack of an opinion on "Obstruction" means bleepin' Trump is bleepin' GUILTY!   Yeah baby!!:su

Almost, but guilt or innocence is not determined by an investigation, but by a trial in our system of justice. 

This where politics and physics overlap.  Schrodinger's cat.  You can't determine if the cat in the box is guilty or innocent until you open the box.  So the cat in the box is both or neither until you open the box.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Dude, the reason was given in literally the first sentence of your quote.

Like I said. 'It's not our job to decide whether the President committed a crime. Here's the mountain of evidence that shows he did commit a crime along with a friendly little reminder that it is the constitutional duty of elected officials to make sure he doesn't get away with it'. A roadmap to impeachment.

Putting words in Mueller's mouth. Please go off what was written. It was written that way for a reason.

If what you suggest is what Mueller wanted. He would have put it into his conclusion, not buried it deep in the legal mumbo jumbo of the ground rules established during procedural discussions.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Where the heck ya been, Tiggs?   Anyway, Gray Goose and tonic. Ya.

Hi chap,

Just serving drinks, these days. My interest was in the conspiracy theory -- and that's now been resolved. Fairly sure everyone else can handle the political side of things without me.

* Slides a Grey Goose and tonic down the bar *

 

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

I'd order a Russian Collusion but all I'd get would be an empty glass.

One Moscow Mueller, coming up.
 

3 minutes ago, Kismit said:

Just a water and lime for me Tigg’s, It’s 6.30am here

Absolutely.

* Passes you a glass of water, with lime *

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Intent alone is not prosecutable. What actions did Trump actually make happen?

Are you serious? He ordered them to commit a crime. They refused because they knew it was a crime, the same crime that a previous AG was convicted of.

9 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Yes, if Sessions was ordered to rob a bank and didn't, that isn't necessarily a crime.

No. I mean just simply no. 

Sigh. Let me put it another way. If a mob boss is recorded ordering someone to murder someone, but the guy doesn't go through with it, it is still a crime. He would be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Ordering a subordinate to commit a crime is itself a crime. 

Quote

"(a) A person is guilty of criminal solicitation if, with the intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a crime, he solicits, requests, commands or importunes such other person to engage in such conduct.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-solicitation/

Quote

where the substantive offense is not committed, the charges are drawn from incitement, conspiracy, and attempt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation#United_States

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I quoted it above.

You did. Was still replying, while you posted.

Just thought I'd mention that the OP was selectable now, as it originally wasn't, when it was first released. Difficult to have a meaningful conversation about a text that size, without quotations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

He prevented HILLARY from becoming presudent!!! Unforgivable! It was her turn!

 

A lot of people don't think so.  But as the old saying goes, "It takes a thief to catch a thief."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Without a actual thing obstructed. Intent isn't necessarily a crime. That's why presidents have advisors. All he has to say is he was bounding ideas of his advisors, and he's off the hook. 

Very hard to prove intent and a consequence.

Also very true.  Of course most of those advisers are now gone, so for the next year and a half, he can do what he wants.  Lots of possibilities.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Hummm... Yes,  I thought that is where you were going.

Basically Mueller's team did say (in establishing constitutional/congressional applicability on obstruction) that IF THERE IS Obstruction, that Congress can punish the President. But... Mueller didn't say there was obstruction, he said he wouldn't decide on that. So if Congress wants to read the report and THEY DECIDE there is obstruction, then they can follow up. But Mueller said no such thing that it was up to Congress. He said he would not decide.

He had the authority, he simply didn't think the instances were prosecuable. 

No. In that first sentence you quoted he states that making a decision wasn't within his remit.

Quote

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct

He's saying that they don't have the authority - or, more accurately, he didn't think they had the right to make that judgement, so were not going to do so. He did not state that the instances were not prosecutable with regards to obstruction. But note, he explicitly did state this with the case for conspiracy with the Russians. Strange, eh? Why not state that outright for both cases? 

He basically said: 'it's not up to us to confirm that he committed a crime' then went on to state unequivocally that it is their job to state if obstruction did not occur, but they couldn't do that. Then added the reminder to Congress that I posted above. Can you not read the politics of this structure? He wasn't allowed to say that the President committed a crime, so he instead listed all the crimes, a statement that the evidence suggests that he couldn't absolve the President of a crime (because it was within his remit to do this), along with a reminder to Congress that the President isn't above the law. 

 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

God summation of the presidential condition. Not  a slam dunk for either side.  Thanks for quoting it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Setton said:

:sleepy:

Must have hit a nerve. 

Please quote where I have said any of the things in bold. 

I'll wait. 

I'm just pointing out the lies you and others are spreading. Sorry if that triggers your paranoia. If only there was a safe space for you... 

Humility and contrition? Must be because of the hanger from your get Trump binge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Putting words in Mueller's mouth. Please go off what was written. It was written that way for a reason.

If what you suggest is what Mueller wanted. He would have put it into his conclusion, not buried it deep in the legal mumbo jumbo of the ground rules established during procedural discussions.

I actually just read a great explanation of this that makes it easier to understand.

'The way it was set up was the answers could only be not guilty and NOT not guilty. Mueller found him NOT not guilty'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Humility and contrition? Must be because of the hanger from your get Trump binge.

I repeat:

:sleepy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Are you serious? He ordered them to commit a crime. They refused because they knew it was a crime, the same crime that a previous AG was convicted of.

No. I mean just simply no. 

Sigh. Let me put it another way. If a mob boss is recorded ordering someone to murder someone, but the guy doesn't go through with it, it is still a crime. He would be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Ordering a subordinate to commit a crime is itself a crime. 

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-solicitation/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation#United_States

Let me use a different example.

Drunk Driving... Is planning to drink and drive a crime? Of course not. There has to be actual DRIVING to create a DUI. True, people can get Public Intoxication, but even if you PLAN to get publicly intoxicated... Is that a crime? Nope. Planning to get drunk isn't a crime.

So, does Obstruction fall under VIOLENT Crimes were premeditation is important? Or is it a crime that only matters if you commit the crime?

Going off Mueller, it is the latter. And simply wanting to commit, or EVEN ORDERING it, is not a crime. That is, if it never occurs.

AND... That's not even considering what Mueller goes into GREAT DETAIL of why the President has vast powers to hire/fire people, at his will. And to start/stop, or otherwise influence, investigations occurring in any of the Executive Branch organizations under him. Go... Read... See what Mueller said about the President's powers.

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

No. In that first sentence you quoted he states that making a decision wasn't within his remit.

He's saying that they don't have the authority - or, more accurately, he didn't think they had the right to make that judgement, so were not going to do so. He did not state that the instances were not prosecutable with regards to obstruction. But note, he explicitly did state this with the case for conspiracy with the Russians. Strange, eh? Why not state that outright for both cases? 

He basically said: 'it's not up to us to confirm that he committed a crime' then went on to state unequivocally that it is their job to state if obstruction did not occur, but they couldn't do that. Then added the reminder to Congress that I posted above. Can you not read the politics of this structure? He wasn't allowed to say that the President committed a crime, so he instead listed all the crimes, a statement that the evidence suggests that he couldn't absolve the President of a crime (because it was within his remit to do this), along with a reminder to Congress that the President isn't above the law. 

No. I'm not buying that Charging obstruction wasn't within Mueller's powers. Why would Mueller write, "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.", if he didn't have the authority to actually make those decisions if he decided to? No, I don't agree.

Again, you are saying, "Basically....", which is you INTERPRETING what Mueller wrote, not actually reading what he wrote. Mueller didn't say he didn't have authority. He said he decided not to follow a "traditional prosecutorial judgment", due to the "difficult issues that would need to be resolved". That just says that he thought it would be really difficult to make a good case, and so he decided to publish the various evidencial instances and not find an ultimate conclusion.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I actually just read a great explanation of this that makes it easier to understand.

'The way it was set up was the answers could only be not guilty and NOT not guilty. Mueller found him NOT not guilty'.

"The way it was set up...". Without a link, this is just confusing me. What was "Set Up"? The Mueller Report? 

I suspect, like in the election... Sour Grapes. Don't like the conclusions, so call it a set up... A very poor argument IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Setton said:

I repeat:

:sleepy:

At a loss for words, too? Oh my ! Limp sails and trapped in the doldrums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-anyone-other-than-trump-would-have-been-indicted-for-obstruction

Of course Granma Clinton needs to get in some words.

Quote

"I think there’s enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted,” Clinton said...

That's RICH coming from her, based on what Comey said about her own investigation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about impeding an investigation of collusion, which said investigation failed to find evidence for, will never result in a successful impeachment. The Democrats lowered the bar to allow Bill Clinton to skate free and it's stuck down there, now. Nancy Pelosi knows this and knows what political suicide looks like. As long as she's Speaker, it ain't going to happen. It's like a vote of confidence in parliamentary democracies--if you already know you don't have the numbers, it's just wasted effort. The Democrats shot their wad running on "Get Trump" in the mid terms. It's going to ring rather hollow the second time around, in the wake of the Mueller disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Drunk Driving... Is planning to drink and drive a crime? Of course not. There has to be actual DRIVING to create a DUI. True, people can get Public Intoxication, but even if you PLAN to get publicly intoxicated... Is that a crime? Nope. Planning to get drunk isn't a crime.

Except this actually is a bad analogy. Planning to drink and drive would be something that only exists in the mind. You can't be convicted for your thoughts. Ordering someone to commit a crime is an action - itself a crime. You can be convicted for your actions.

It doesn't have to be violent. Soliciting someone to commit an illegal act is a crime. There are different levels of solicitation, but not all require something as serious as violence.

38 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

AND... That's not even considering what Mueller goes into GREAT DETAIL of why the President has vast powers to hire/fire people, at his will. And to start/stop, or otherwise influence, investigations occurring in any of the Executive Branch organizations under him. Go... Read... See what Mueller said about the President's powers.

The problem isn't with him firing anyone. The problem is the reason behind his actions. If that reason is to obstruct an investigation then it's illegal. I think you'll find Nixon tried that defence, which makes me confused as to why you think it has any merit in this case when both situations parallel each other so closely with regards to obstruction.

41 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

No. I'm not buying that Charging obstruction wasn't within Mueller's powers. Why would Mueller write, "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.", if he didn't have the authority to actually make those decisions if he decided to? No, I don't agree.

Of course it wasn't. We knew that the DoJ had a policy of not prosecuting a President. Like I said, the first sentence that you yourself quoted makes it clear that he wouldn't go down that route and we know it was for the aforementioned reason. If I haven't gotten through to you by now then likely it's impossible. Maybe after a few years of reflection the fog may clear. You're obviously intelligent so I have confidence you'll get there eventually. Might even be sooner - Mueller is due to appear in front of Congress at some point, no?

45 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Again, you are saying, "Basically....", which is you INTERPRETING what Mueller wrote, not actually reading what he wrote. Mueller didn't say he didn't have authority. He said he decided not to follow a "traditional prosecutorial judgment", due to the "difficult issues that would need to be resolved". That just says that he thought it would be really difficult to make a good case, and so he decided to publish the various evidencial instances and not find an ultimate conclusion.

Yes, interpreting it. That's how it was written. He couldn't come right out and say 'guilty' because he's a by-the-book operator, so he basically said it in every way possible without stating it outright. It was pure politics and executed flawlessly. Have you not read analysis on this? There are loads of sources that lay it out. I'd get my research on if I were you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

"The way it was set up...". Without a link, this is just confusing me. What was "Set Up"? The Mueller Report? 

I suspect, like in the election... Sour Grapes. Don't like the conclusions, so call it a set up... A very poor argument IMHO.

Not a 'set-up'. It means the way his prosecutorial powers were structured. The way they were set up. Get me?

When you aren't permitted to make a decision on whether someone is guilty, the next best thing is declaring that they are not not-guilty. Basically what I've been saying: declaring that he committed obstruction without actually declaring it. It was a political way around the restrictions imposed by the DoJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Thinking about impeding an investigation of collusion, which said investigation failed to find evidence for

Have you read any of the report? Like at all? There is a ton of evidence of conspiracy, never mind collusion. Just not enough to convict. 

I think you are confusing collusion and conspiracy. Collusion is undeniable, but collusion has no basis in law and as such was not investigated. Conspiracy was investigated. I suggest a quick search to find out the definition of collusion and you'll soon realise that many of the campaign connections with Russia fit the definition perfectly. 

The Trump Tower meeting was criminal, according to Mueller, with the only reason for Jr not being indicted being that it would be hard to prove that Jr knew it was illegal. That's pretty damning, wouldn't you say? I seem to remember pretty much every Republican on here moaning about Hillary being let off for that exact reason. Have they all suddenly changed their minds?

It's so weird that people are acting as though the report completely cleared Trump and his campaign. Madness to be honest.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no wonder presidents always have so many advisers. They made excuses for Obama about feeling his way around his first two years in office. They said to let him get his footing. He got his footing alright...

Edited by Michelle
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Ordering someone to commit a crime is an action - itself a crime. You can be convicted for your actions.

True. But not all of the obstruction accusations are orders. Or, at least there is room as to what constitutes an order. Comey implied a offhand(?) comment by Trump to be an order.

Quote

It doesn't have to be violent. Soliciting someone to commit an illegal act is a crime.

But, your assuming a crime exists that is being ordered. Mueller wrote that the powers of the president, like you said, say there can be no such crime according to tradition. 

I do admit, I think you are right here, and I probably will have to concede the point that some of the actions would be criminal, if of a very minor form, if not at the direction of the president.

Quote

The problem isn't with him firing anyone. The problem is the reason behind his actions. If that reason is to obstruct an investigation then it's illegal. I think you'll find Nixon tried that defence, which makes me confused as to why you think it has any merit in this case when both situations parallel each other so closely with regards to obstruction.

Confused? I am paraphrasing what Mueller wrote regarding the president and obstruction.

I'm not creating a defense, I'm saying what Mueller said.

You're basically agreeing with me in your next paragraph.

Quote

Of course it wasn't. We knew that the DoJ had a policy of not prosecuting a President. Like I said, the first sentence that you yourself quoted makes it clear that he wouldn't go down that route and we know it was for the aforementioned reason. If I haven't gotten through to you by now then likely it's impossible. Maybe after a few years of reflection the fog may clear. You're obviously intelligent so I have confidence you'll get there eventually. Might even be sooner - Mueller is due to appear in front of Congress at some point, no?

Rubbish. Using the DOJ policy to say Mueller could not charge would mean the whole thing was a waste, and no one doing anything for the president could be charged. 

Regardless half the obstruction accusations were from before Trump was elected, so....

Quote

Yes, interpreting it. That's how it was written. He couldn't come right out and say 'guilty' because he's a by-the-book operator, so he basically said it in every way possible without stating it outright. It was pure politics and executed flawlessly. Have you not read analysis on this? There are loads of sources that lay it out. I'd get my research on if I were you.

I have to admit I've not read the ultra far left's analysis of the Mueller Report, because they have an obvious strong bias and are trying to somehow justify their continuing passion for "getting" Trump.

Myself, I was going off what Mueller wrote. Not what a bunch of self inflated talking heads think.

Regardless, I'll now go see what the talking heads think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Who F'ing cares?  Listen melon head, I didn't say tomorrow, it will be over the next few months and you best not play like you are way ahead here, you have been losing since this started and the Mueller report must've crushed you.  I called it exactly and what did you call?  LMAO

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.