Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[ProudModerate2]

For FB and all the other Trumpers claiming that the Brennan’s of the world calling Trump treasonous is over the line A) fox hosts like Eric Bolling said the same thing about Obama for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorist” so spare us the partisan outrage and B) the Mueller report clearly shows Trump and his campaign knew the Russians were behind the hacking, kept in contact with Wikileaks, and encouraged this attack on our democracy because it would benefit them. Guys like Brennan probably do view such actions as treasonous

What trump and his cohorts did is treasonous, and I'm sure many others (including me and other Atlas users) see it that way also.

[ProudModerate2]

Nice side stepping my point Fuzzy

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

... Preachy Parson Fuzzybear loves to cling onto an irrelevant or incomplete portion of the point being made and then bloviate ad nauseum.  He does this in nearly every argument he makes.
  This is called ignoratio elenchi or “irrelevant conclusion” in which the person makes what may or may not be logically valid or sound argument, but whose conclusion misses the point of the issue in question.

[ProudModerate2]

Atlas liberals (indeed, most of the anti-Trump left coailition) is disappointed that the Mueller report concluded that Trump and his campaign didn't "collude" with Russia.  They wanted it to be true.  They wanted sham indictments, even if they were baseless.  

When a prosecutor indicts someone, they are saying, at the time of an indictment, or of an information filed, that they are able, at trial, to prove their allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that a prosecutor indicts someone to see what sticks is reprehensible in jurisprudence.  It's not OK just because people see examples of this on fictional TV, and the fact that it's done in real life doesn't make it right.  That's what people wanted here, even though the facts of the report say otherwise.

Donald Trump may not deserve your vote.  I'm not convinced he deserves mine for 2020, although there are lost of Democrats I can't vote for under any circumstances.  But people are so deranged over Trump that they've abandoned their own principles.  Vote the man out.  Oppose his policies.  But the idea that anyone, even a political leader you hate, should be prosecuted when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.

You really don't seem to have the slightest idea of what Mueller actually reported.

Fuzzy talks of others being "so deranged over trump," yet he uses the same style of excuses and deflections of reality like the other trumpists. Go figure.

[ProudModerate2]

... But there needs to be some acknowledgement of the horrible precedent this whole process has set; it was far more of a witch hunt even I thought it was, and something that should never have to happen to any future President, just because people don't like him personally.  (And the motivation here was personal, as well as partisan, and that, too, is unjustified.) 

Are you nuts.
There were many indictments and many who are going to jail.
Mueller provided further evidence of Russian interference and even indicted 25 Russians who were intelligence agents for Russia’s GRU (or other Russians involved with conspiracy to defraud the US) and 3 affiliated companies.
This was not a "witch hunt" as you are saying.
Stop acting like a complete partisan, trumpist hack.

[ProudModerate2]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate. 

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

Here's a towelette.  Wipe the egg off your face and get down to the hard work of convincing them why they should not vote for Trump in 2020, if seeing him out of office is that important to you.  I suspect that America is tiring of False Narratives that seem ever so real, only to implode under close inspection.

Lmao. We've already known this before, and the report has only made this eve more clear - the reasons for starting the investigation did not rely on the dossier.

It's not very kind to trouble Fuzzy with inconvenient facts. 
But it's the right thing to do.

It's laughable ignorance.
Why would Fuzzy even go down the road of blaming "The Dossier."
Uggggg!

[ProudModerate2]

I so wish that a Dem is elected in 2020, and the new Justice Dept moves forward with indicting donald trump. Actually, an easy decision should be one against Don Jr.

[ProudModerate2]

Another embarrassment for the Democrats. The left just got smacked up.

It is also absolutely disgusting to see CNN so desperate in wishing, wanting, begging, for trump to be impeached. Trying to twist and wring any fraction of a fraction of evidence to possibly maybe support impeachment. This is journalism? It’s disgusting.

If you want disgusting, desperate journalism, turn to Fox News.